Dr M's First Shot
It finally happened today - Tun Dr Mahathir came out blazing in the newspapers and expressed his full disappointment with the Abdullah administration and the promises made to him by Pak Lah, which were not kept.
He complained of being back-stabbed by the people he picked in the past and also commented that he suffered "minor bruises", when asked if Pak Lah had done the same to him.
He also claimed that people in the Abdullah administration claimed that he had "bankrupted" the Government, after building the mega-projects like Putrajaya.
He even implied that he's chosen the wrong successor by saying that Pak Lah is not first choice and that he expects "a degree of gratitude".
The phrase "gempar sekampung" to his statements in the press does not even begin to describe it. I've been receiving calls, SMS'es and e-mails all day regarding the issue, from interested friends. It seems to come as quite a shock to many people.
I wasn't surprised - I was expecting Tun to fire the first verbal shot. I was expecting it to come a little later, though. But then, you can never truly predict Tun Mahathir's moves. He's always 3 steps ahead of everyone.
*****************************************************
The swift response by a slew of Ministers was more telling in what they said, as opposed to how many of them, had come to Pak Lah's defence.
I thought Dato' Seri Najib gave the best response that the Prime Minister is not to be blamed for everything, as it is a Cabinet decision. I thought it was good for 2 reasons.
First, that it reaffirms the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, on the policy decisions made by the current Government and that if it was true if there were any mistaken policies in the past administration under Dr. Mahathir, it is also a collective mistake by all those who had also been Cabinet Ministers, back then. (Most of whom are still in the current Cabinet)
Secondly, the only way for a Minister to dissociate oneself from a collective stand, once the policy decision is decided on by the Cabinet - is to resign. And before the issue is decided on, to speak up on the issue and disagree. Silence constitutes consent - blaming the previous or current Prime Minister for all Cabinet decisions made, is tantamount to saying that we have appointed stooges, as our Ministers.
Datuk Azalina Othman Said went one step further, by saying that some decisions were made by Ministers, and only announced by the Prime Minister. She continued to say that to say that Pak Lah unilaterally makes decisions and shoots down the former PM's plans, is not accurate.
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz's comments, were even more interesting.
He claimed the Abdullah administration never said that the Government has run out of money - although it is common knowledge that the money for 8th Malaysia Plan has been spent 2 years ago! He politely added that they did not blame Dr Mahathir for it. How nice of them not to do so.
**********************************************************
What do I make out of this whole fracas?
First, no promise made by any current Prime Minister to a former Prime Minister can and should be binding, without reference to the Cabinet and the national interest, at that time and going forward, 5-10 years down.
No matter how grateful you are, no such promises should be made (and if Pak Lah made such promises, it's foolish of him). And neither should there be an expectation that such promises would be kept.
Secondly, I don't think Tun Mahathir is trying to topple Pak Lah, as widely speculated. It's not Pak Lah's head that he wants. Listen to what he's been saying in the last few months and you may pick up certain hints, on what he wants.
Yes, I think that he wants certain people around Pak Lah removed from prominence (hints of the persona of Khairy Jamaluddin and Kalimullah Hassan, seem to be peppered all over his interviews)and mention of his dissatisfaction on the handling of the AP issue, still persists.
Yes, I think I think he would want for the railway double-tracking project to continue and perhaps, the scenic half-bridge to Singapore too - for infrastructure development and shipping/logistics strategy (although the merits of the latter is debatable, according to some).
I think he would want to be consulted and not side-lined in Proton-related issues. (It's strange to have be an advisor to a company where certain decisions are not explained to him).
And perhaps, to play a more prominent role in Petronas and on strategic decisions on what to do with its funds.
And occasionally, to be consulted like a one-man policy think-tank on issues, because the Old Man is still as sharp as razor, especially on current economic and foreign policy issues. He's not the Prime Minister anymore - it can't hurt to consult him for advice, on certain issues.
Last but not least, I think he would like a public apology by Pak Lah, from the Abdullah administration. Never underestimate the value of respect, amongst Malay leaders. Everyone wants to be appreciated for their efforts.
I think if all these were conceded to Dr Mahathir, he would leave the Abdullah administration alone. And he will not continue creating ripples within UMNO.
The only question is: will the "price" of what will be asked, possibly, be too high to concede for Pak Lah (personally and administratively) and the country, going forward?
And the bigger question is: if he doesn't get at least half of what he wants - will he persist in his attacks on Pak Lah in UMNO?
***************************************************
Meanwhile, I think it's time the UMNO veterans like Tun Musa Hitam, Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, Tan Sri Aishah Ghani and Tan Sri Sanusi Junid play a mediating role between Dr Mahathir and Pak Lah, before things get really ugly in UMNO.
Some things are more suited to being settled behind closed doors and by people who no longer have a conflict of interest - as they're not in the Cabinet.
Since 1981, every 10-12 years or so, there is a huge split in UMNO.
This is (possibly) the 3rd time it's happening and this time, it's the first time that Dr Mahathir is not the Prime Minister. But as Anwar Ibrahim has pointed out - it would a mistake to underestimate Dr Mahathir.
Tun Ling Liong Sik once said that a former President of a Barisan component party can always swing at least 30% of the party's votes. Considering the significance of Dr Mahathir's influence in UMNO, it will not be impossible (though difficult) for him to swing another 21% to him, if the intent was to for him to return as UMNO President and remove Pak Lah.
The capacity is there, perhaps. But as I said - I don't think that's his intent, unless he feels that it's his only option.
The best solution here, I feel, is for the UMNO veterans to broker some sort of compromise between both parties, based on what both parties desire - preferably, a compromise that can be reached before the UMNO General Assembly.
Let's avoid another unnecessary split amongst the Malays, which will not only undermine Malay progress, but also threatens to derail Malaysia's national development, as a whole.
Every time we split UMNO and the Malay community into two, we segregate and exclude half of our talent pool, from the benefits of development - just because politics warrants it so. It's emotionally exhausting and frustrating, for most.
The competitive world is leaving us behind, as we habitually split our community, every 10 years or so. It's time for UMNO to mature from past lessons and make the best of what we have, in unity.
And yet, I see so many of the young ones out there, goading and egging for a political fight. They want to see "political blood" spilled and prominent figures fall, without considering the consequences of a political split, on everyday Malaysians. Knowing what's right is not enough, unless you do things in a proper way.
Work doesn't get done in Government when they have to focus on politicking and survival in their party. Ministers will spend more time campaigning than doing actual work. Than studying whether the Government policies are correct and suitable, or not and whether implementation is done efficiently.
And when work doesn't get done or is delayed - it is the people that suffer, especially the poor. How many of these sort of years has Malaysia had in the past? How much time and resources has been wasted in defeating the other party, whose your own kind?
There is a time to fight, and there is a time not to fight. Wisdom lies is in knowing the right time, for each one.
He complained of being back-stabbed by the people he picked in the past and also commented that he suffered "minor bruises", when asked if Pak Lah had done the same to him.
He also claimed that people in the Abdullah administration claimed that he had "bankrupted" the Government, after building the mega-projects like Putrajaya.
He even implied that he's chosen the wrong successor by saying that Pak Lah is not first choice and that he expects "a degree of gratitude".
The phrase "gempar sekampung" to his statements in the press does not even begin to describe it. I've been receiving calls, SMS'es and e-mails all day regarding the issue, from interested friends. It seems to come as quite a shock to many people.
I wasn't surprised - I was expecting Tun to fire the first verbal shot. I was expecting it to come a little later, though. But then, you can never truly predict Tun Mahathir's moves. He's always 3 steps ahead of everyone.
*****************************************************
The swift response by a slew of Ministers was more telling in what they said, as opposed to how many of them, had come to Pak Lah's defence.
I thought Dato' Seri Najib gave the best response that the Prime Minister is not to be blamed for everything, as it is a Cabinet decision. I thought it was good for 2 reasons.
First, that it reaffirms the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, on the policy decisions made by the current Government and that if it was true if there were any mistaken policies in the past administration under Dr. Mahathir, it is also a collective mistake by all those who had also been Cabinet Ministers, back then. (Most of whom are still in the current Cabinet)
Secondly, the only way for a Minister to dissociate oneself from a collective stand, once the policy decision is decided on by the Cabinet - is to resign. And before the issue is decided on, to speak up on the issue and disagree. Silence constitutes consent - blaming the previous or current Prime Minister for all Cabinet decisions made, is tantamount to saying that we have appointed stooges, as our Ministers.
Datuk Azalina Othman Said went one step further, by saying that some decisions were made by Ministers, and only announced by the Prime Minister. She continued to say that to say that Pak Lah unilaterally makes decisions and shoots down the former PM's plans, is not accurate.
Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz's comments, were even more interesting.
He claimed the Abdullah administration never said that the Government has run out of money - although it is common knowledge that the money for 8th Malaysia Plan has been spent 2 years ago! He politely added that they did not blame Dr Mahathir for it. How nice of them not to do so.
**********************************************************
What do I make out of this whole fracas?
First, no promise made by any current Prime Minister to a former Prime Minister can and should be binding, without reference to the Cabinet and the national interest, at that time and going forward, 5-10 years down.
No matter how grateful you are, no such promises should be made (and if Pak Lah made such promises, it's foolish of him). And neither should there be an expectation that such promises would be kept.
Secondly, I don't think Tun Mahathir is trying to topple Pak Lah, as widely speculated. It's not Pak Lah's head that he wants. Listen to what he's been saying in the last few months and you may pick up certain hints, on what he wants.
Yes, I think that he wants certain people around Pak Lah removed from prominence (hints of the persona of Khairy Jamaluddin and Kalimullah Hassan, seem to be peppered all over his interviews)and mention of his dissatisfaction on the handling of the AP issue, still persists.
Yes, I think I think he would want for the railway double-tracking project to continue and perhaps, the scenic half-bridge to Singapore too - for infrastructure development and shipping/logistics strategy (although the merits of the latter is debatable, according to some).
I think he would want to be consulted and not side-lined in Proton-related issues. (It's strange to have be an advisor to a company where certain decisions are not explained to him).
And perhaps, to play a more prominent role in Petronas and on strategic decisions on what to do with its funds.
And occasionally, to be consulted like a one-man policy think-tank on issues, because the Old Man is still as sharp as razor, especially on current economic and foreign policy issues. He's not the Prime Minister anymore - it can't hurt to consult him for advice, on certain issues.
Last but not least, I think he would like a public apology by Pak Lah, from the Abdullah administration. Never underestimate the value of respect, amongst Malay leaders. Everyone wants to be appreciated for their efforts.
I think if all these were conceded to Dr Mahathir, he would leave the Abdullah administration alone. And he will not continue creating ripples within UMNO.
The only question is: will the "price" of what will be asked, possibly, be too high to concede for Pak Lah (personally and administratively) and the country, going forward?
And the bigger question is: if he doesn't get at least half of what he wants - will he persist in his attacks on Pak Lah in UMNO?
***************************************************
Meanwhile, I think it's time the UMNO veterans like Tun Musa Hitam, Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen, Tan Sri Aishah Ghani and Tan Sri Sanusi Junid play a mediating role between Dr Mahathir and Pak Lah, before things get really ugly in UMNO.
Some things are more suited to being settled behind closed doors and by people who no longer have a conflict of interest - as they're not in the Cabinet.
Since 1981, every 10-12 years or so, there is a huge split in UMNO.
This is (possibly) the 3rd time it's happening and this time, it's the first time that Dr Mahathir is not the Prime Minister. But as Anwar Ibrahim has pointed out - it would a mistake to underestimate Dr Mahathir.
Tun Ling Liong Sik once said that a former President of a Barisan component party can always swing at least 30% of the party's votes. Considering the significance of Dr Mahathir's influence in UMNO, it will not be impossible (though difficult) for him to swing another 21% to him, if the intent was to for him to return as UMNO President and remove Pak Lah.
The capacity is there, perhaps. But as I said - I don't think that's his intent, unless he feels that it's his only option.
The best solution here, I feel, is for the UMNO veterans to broker some sort of compromise between both parties, based on what both parties desire - preferably, a compromise that can be reached before the UMNO General Assembly.
Let's avoid another unnecessary split amongst the Malays, which will not only undermine Malay progress, but also threatens to derail Malaysia's national development, as a whole.
Every time we split UMNO and the Malay community into two, we segregate and exclude half of our talent pool, from the benefits of development - just because politics warrants it so. It's emotionally exhausting and frustrating, for most.
The competitive world is leaving us behind, as we habitually split our community, every 10 years or so. It's time for UMNO to mature from past lessons and make the best of what we have, in unity.
And yet, I see so many of the young ones out there, goading and egging for a political fight. They want to see "political blood" spilled and prominent figures fall, without considering the consequences of a political split, on everyday Malaysians. Knowing what's right is not enough, unless you do things in a proper way.
Work doesn't get done in Government when they have to focus on politicking and survival in their party. Ministers will spend more time campaigning than doing actual work. Than studying whether the Government policies are correct and suitable, or not and whether implementation is done efficiently.
And when work doesn't get done or is delayed - it is the people that suffer, especially the poor. How many of these sort of years has Malaysia had in the past? How much time and resources has been wasted in defeating the other party, whose your own kind?
There is a time to fight, and there is a time not to fight. Wisdom lies is in knowing the right time, for each one.
posted by Stingrayz | 2:43 AM
25 Comments:
Never, ever underestimate Dr. M hunger, courage and fortitute to set things right as he sees fit.
Right or wrong, he says what he means, and almost always means what he says. Hardly ever back racks.
And THAT'S the problem... but it isn't his problem. it's other people's problem.
Yes bro, I totally agree with you on this. The price of a split is much to great. And our experience in UKEC has taught us that valuable lesson :)
Keropok:
It's can be both a good and a bad thing.
Good in the sense that things that don't make sense or are in excess, can be corrected.
Bad in the sense that sometimes, when you've retired - you have to allow the space for your successor to make his own rights and wrongs.
Any of us who have groomed an organization (big or small) and has to let go to the next generation of leaders know this.
A leader who makes himself indispensable, is a bad leader.
Ervan:
The difference is, our split in UKEC will not cause 25 million people to be left behind, in the world. ;)
Bro,
That's what we learned, and now, we should try to prevent it from happening..
1987, 1998... brought nothing to the advancement of Malays in Malaysia...
Ervan:
I agree.
Except that the 1998 split, brought about some semblance of political awakening and awareness amongst the young, who have never been interested in politics.
Sometimes, splits are necessary on points of principle or integrity - but it should only be used as a very last resort.
In running a country like Malaysia, especially - the cost of political splits for the people, can be extremely high.
I agree that people like Musa Hitam could try to mediate but the context of the mediation, in my view, is not that Pak Lah should apologise but that Mahathir should either put up or shut up. At a personal level, I think Pak Lah could apologise and sweep the whole thing under the carpet but could he do that and survive politically?
I agree that the flak might be directed at those around the PM rather than the PM himself. But it is the Old Man who emasculated the civil service and the check and balances within government so much that it is now possible for these people to lord it over all parts of the government by virtue of their proximity to Pak Lah.
I'm sure that is to his regret but kesal kemudian, tiada guna.
That said, certain of Mahathir's points are not without merit esp the twin tracking of the railway. But why should it go to Al-Bukhary in the way it did? The cost was so enormous that it didn't make sense. If Mahathir tries to reason why it is imperative for the railway to go ahead (in his Malay dilemma style) rather than rely on his patronising not at all funny jokes and sarcasm, the government would have a much harder time responding on the merits alone. No?
but then again since when has major decisions been made on facts and reason rather than for political expediency first and foremost?
Pak Lah lembik. That's it folks. He doesn't have the heart.
Anonymous:
I think hell will freeze over first, before Dr. Mahathir would keep quiet over anything that he feels strongly about and where he thinks is right.
So, abandon all hope there.
As for the apology bit (for the emotional offence, not the policies), I think he'll come out stronger in the eyes of the UMNO people.
It's an UMNO thing - leaders who observe the subtle nuances of adab Melayu more - will always win over the Malay support.
It's something that Pak Lah has, that many of the younger ones could learn from.
I agree that during Dr Mahathir's time, that all politicians ascended in power and influence.
But the civil service is not that weak or emasculated - try running roughshod over them and they will make life (and bureaucracy) hell for you.
It's hard to move their inertia or change their culture.
Yes, the costs were enormous on the double-tracking project, but the benefits would have been immense, as well.
But generally, I think there is a difference in how both Dr Mahathir and Pak Lah views money (and the availability of it, from which sources it should be tapped from and priority of spending).
And perhaps, according to Pak Lah's view of money - there is no money available in Government, at this point in time, for such huge expenditure.
(I can almost hear someone ask - what about Petronas? But the merits and demerits of dipping into Petronas funds, will be discussed another day)
Anonymous (the 2nd one):
Personally, I don't like the approach of not addressing issues, when it is raised.
Especially, if they're policy issues
- any responsible Government should take the time to explain, educate and debate the rationale out, to the people.
Mahathir always did - we got to hear about currency speculators, the ploy of Western powers, the deviation in Islamic teachings, etc. during the speeches for all festivities - Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali, Maulidur Rasul, Hari Kebangsaan, etc.
People underestimate the value of such "preaching".
But bear in mind that the pervasiveness of Mahathir's ideas and influence, was precisely due to his repeated preaching of his ideas - and explaining/justifying why the Government did things in a certain way.
That's something that Pak Lah should copy. The public needs to be communicated to - whether some of them will disagree with you, is another matter, altogether.
To 80% of this country, an explanation is sufficient. Dr Mahathir got away with it.
And personally, I don't think Pak Lah is lembik. Anymore than Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak or Tun Hussein is considered "lembik".
I think we've grown accustomed to having a ruthlessly driven and bulldozing Prime Minister, that anything less, would be perceived as "lembik".
I think Pak Lah's very focused on what he wants to do with the 9th Malaysia Plan.
I think he lacks PR and image management and he doesn't publicize enough the work that he's done and the improvements that have happened, during his tenure.
Perhaps, one area that he can be fairly said to be "lembik", (from a perception perspective) is with his treatment of the members of his own Cabinet (like Rafidah Aziz) and his family.
Totally agree on the "lembik" analysis, Stingray. Pak Lah needs to be allowed to exercise his own brand of leadership.
But people will only accept alternatives to the bulldozing style of Dr M's leadership, IF AND WHEN that alternative leadership works.
And manifests itself clearly to have worked / be working. Not quite the case in Pak Lah's case.
Or at least - after 3 years - the jury's still out on that.
> People are still unsatisfied with public service delivery.
> Has the tranparency needle moved a great deal? Any large indications of this yet?
> Are the Malays any more united than they were four years ago? Or is the reverse the case?
> Are race-relations a heck of a lot better than they were before?
> Is the economy better off than how things were before? Granted, Pak Lah came on board without the tide in his favour, but are there really any signs of the economic tide turning for the better?
The jury is still out on all the above.
So while it may be a convenient summary, it isn't actually difficult to say his leadership doesnt seem to show signs of bringing real improvements, nor are any signs of a surge in the right directions evident.
While I don't sanction Dr M's outburst - like a grandparent telling his son/daughter how to raise their chilren (makes parent's damn benggang!) - it perhaps comes with a dash of much-needed, albeit unsavoury, call to action.
Can any COMPELLING argument be put against it but the current government?
As I said, the jury's still out on it :)
P.S. Brother Stingray, hope you're ok with my linking my amateurish football blog to yours :)
I was kinda expecting (hoping) Dr M to eventually speak out.
And for the first time, I'm glad Promuda backed him up.
I kinda expected Pak Lah to not say anything. After all, he is not as articulate. Plus, dia kan Mr Nice Guy. Mr Nice Guy doesn't fight back. He walks away... (like a true gentleman lah konon..)
I think you're right. He wasn't hitting out at Pak Lah. Rather, he was attacking Pak Lah's aides.
I personally think Pak Lah is a nice guy. But sometimes I wish he didn't listen to his aides too much. Sometimes I wish they let him make his own decisions.
Sigh.
Anyway, I miss 'fighting' with you. Oh.. and I kinda like Diddy.. though I think he is kinda sissy.. heheh.
Take care now..
Keropok:
Thanks for the thought-provoking reply.
First, I'd like to agree with you that the jury is still out on the Abdullah administration.
Secondly, if anything, if we'd like to judge Pak Lah on his policies, our starting point should be the election promises and the the 9th Malaysia Plan.
(And the 9MP had just been announced less than 3 months ago)
As far as the election promises go, I think the spin-doctors of the Abdullah administration, over-promised in the election manifesto, beyond what Pak Lah could or would be ready to do.
It's a nice manifesto, it garnered 90% of the seats but it exceeded its political will.
For instance, if a fight against corruption was to be done in the way that it sounded in the manifesto, we'd have to lock up a lot of people from UMNO.
And as it stands, UMNO is not even willing to let ACA look into its "money politics" problem (which in the ordinary course of things, would be called a bribe) - and it has its own separate laws and punishment unto the UMNO people.
So, my first starting point would be - forget half of the election promises - it's not politically doable in UMNO.
Start assessing the Abdullah administration with the 9MP as a basis.
Now, on your other points:
1) Civil service - there are improvements and good parts of the civil service and its agencies (like the Immigration Dept., the IRB, MITI, MOF, MOSTI, MECW, EPU, MAMPU, etc.) but there is not enough yet, to satisfy the people.
You cannot change a negative civil service culture that's been there for 20-30 years, within 3 years. It's impossible.
Unless we start sacking one-third of the civil service like Maggie Thatcher did in Britain - we may have to wait for one generation of laggard civil servants to retire.
(But since Malaysians don't believe in sacking people, we have to pay the price of our compassion)
And under the 9MP, they're moving to cut down red tape and to ensure that Government projects are done on time and without wastage, unlike previous Malaysia plans - where implementation has been poor.
2) Transparency - yes, it's moved quite a bit, but it could be better.
The media reports everything now, even when it's adverse to the Abdullah administration.
Half the time, the carrion bad news is picked up through the press and political vultures have a field day, with it.
There's a proposed commission for everything under the sun, to ensure that the public has confidence in the system.
Parliamentary proceedings are on TV, so that we could see our parliamentarians, making us regret that we elected them.
The GLC (other than Proton) are dead transparent nowadays. It's so transparent, that now everyone thinks that they're an expert on how to run GLCs - just because they have financial data.
And consultation has never been more extensive on issues. Pak Lah and team consults many, many people before making a decision. There are no unilateral actions/decisions or a PM-controlled Cabinet.
3) Malay Unity - it's better now for 2 reasons.
First, PAS can't pick on the Prime Minister anymore, because Pak Lah's exactly the sort of person they would want for a PAS Prime Minister.
Secondly, the release of Anwar Ibrahim has defused the tension that begun in 1998. The Malays are no more angry with the Government, for such unconscionable conduct.
The only place where Malay unity may not be better now - is within UMNO.
4) Race Relations - this has worsened in many ways and it's seeping into our primarily mono-racial sekolah kebangsaan.
But I've always felt that for true national unity - families are the right unit to tackle them at.
I grew up in a multi-racial environment, because my parents had close friends from other races.
I find it nonsensical that people talk about our children being united , when they don't have any close friends from other races!
So, do you blame the Government or do you blame yourself, for racial disunity? Point to ponder.
5) The economy will never again, be as good as it was during the Mahathir era.
The days of 8-9% average GDP growth has been over since 1996. The days of huge FDI inflows are also over, due to China.
If we could do 6-7% a year, that'd be a credit to us, already.
The days of huge construction projects and building like there's no tomorrow (which sometimes contribute 1% of GDP) regardless of demand and overhang, is also over.
The days of subsidy and insulating us from price increases may be over.
We may become like some of our neighbouring countries, (like Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand) whose had to deal in rising costs of fuel, electricity, etc. much earlier, than we did.
Even taxes will rise, as we progress to become a developed country. One of the things why developed countries enjoy their standard of public facility, is due to their high tax base.
Future growth will have to be driven by human capital development, total factor productivity (TFP) improvements, growth of SMEs in the services, manufacturing and agriculture sectors, tourism, innovations in ICT and biotechnology and moving up the value chain and many other intangible stuff.
Basically, all the things that we've not been very good at, in the past.
It's going to be a better country and we'd probably look more like Korea or Taiwan, one day from a competitiveness perspective.
But not before adjusting through the great pain of transition and change, of becoming a developed country.
We're living in a new environment now - just because things are not as good as it used to be, doesn't mean that it's an incompetent Government.
It may just mean that they've just stopped subsidizing our lifestyle.
Give the Abdullah administration another 2 years - you should see some significant changes by then.
If not, you can always hang them, at the ballot box. But we need to be fair in our assessment, taking into account the context of the times.
As for Dr M's outburst - I think he should stop hinting at the "people with other agendas" around Pak Lah and just name them.
And if he wants their head, go for it. He's never been afraid of anything in his life.
Because this "pukul anak, sindir menantu" thing, is risking a huge split in UMNO. No few individuals should be worth that price.
As for link, link away. Just don't expect me to give a comment on football, k? ;)
Pixie:
Dr M always speaks out. No need to hold your breath - he's consistent in that way.
As for Promuda - no comment. I think the Chairman's clarification on Promuda Circle is sufficient.
I think Pak Lah made the right move not to retaliate on the personal comments - as Gandhi would say it - "an eye for an eye, only makes the whole world go blind."
It's like fighting with one's parents - the best of adab in our culture and Islam both - is not to fight back and raise our voices.
Although I think he should eventually address the policy issues that Dr Mahathir has highlighted.
The Cabinet is the final point for all major Government policies. Pak Lah's aides (if we're talking about the policy side here, whom are mainly non-politicans) only give advice, on the policies.
And I know that not all of their advice is taken up - where there are other political considerations for Pak Lah to balance, as well (like UMNO, the need to avoid conflict, etc.).
He does make his own decisions, Pixie. Believe me.
Not any less, than any modern American President (from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton) that has over 100 policy advisors/subject-matter experts or the British Prime Minister, that has a policy unit of 60-70 people.
Sometimes, it's better to have a group of advisors because as an individual, you may overlook certain details.
It's not about how bright you are - sometimes, it's about having a 360 degrees view of something, before deciding on it.
Good policies cannot made without knowledge, research and data. It's not a gut instinct thing.
Pixie:
I miss "fighting" with you over American Idol, too.;)
Have not watched AF yet. Is Diddy a character in AF? ;)
"Because this "pukul anak, sindir menantu" thing, is risking a huge split in UMNO. No few individuals should be worth that price."
Maybe Tun M thinks that these few individuals will be the reason that Malaysia will be sent back to the 70s and hence he thinks its definitely worth the price...
I am guessing is that there's more to it than whats been flying around in the internet and volumes of surat layang.
Apart from Dr Jean Grey becoming the phoenix, rising up from the ashes can be a great thing, if we rise from it...
Rizal:
The fact that he's willing to risk a split in UMNO at any price, is obvious.
But the past history of UMNO splits is enough to show us, that it's not worth it. Each time we kill half of our talent pool, we defeat our national objectives.
Yes, perhaps there's more to the big picture than we have seen. That's a possibility.
But enough already of the political games that bring us 2 steps forward and 4 steps backward.
If Malaysians spent as much time doing something and making a difference, (at all levels) as much as they spend their time talking and politicking - this country would probably be doing better.
"(It's strange to have be an advisor to a company where certain decisions are not explained to him)."
No it's not. I'd say the Board or CEO is under no obligation to consult its advisers before decisions are taken, nor to explain decisions that have been taken. They go to you if they need your advice, and it is they who decide for themselves whether your advice is needed.
But going back to Dr M, does anyone really think that the majority of the ordinary rakyat "connect" with the 4 issues he wants answered (Augusta, Mahaleel's job, the Bridge and NAP)? NAP possibly, because it can affect the rakyat generally. But the rest smacks of narrow "special interest" issues.
Aren't there bigger issues for the rakyat? Fuel prices, power tariff, inflation, health, education, environmental damage, water quality, crime rate, police reforms, judicial independence to name but 10...
Anon 2
Anon 2:
I think on a major decision like the sale of Augusta (which makes up a part of Proton's IP) for RM4 - they should have either gone to him for advice BEFORE the sale (not for permission but for consultation) - or at least, if it's after the sale - then, to explain the details of the sale in full.
This includes why it was sold to the particular party (and not other parties), why for that price and the process that was involved in the sale.
When you appoint someone as an advisor to your company, he has to be kept in the loop on the major decisions, even if he has no executive powers.
He cannot be treated the same way as a 3rd party on the street. That would make the salary/allowance that we pay him (even if a nominal sum, perhaps) a redundant one.
What sort of advisor would he be, if he doesn't understand why certain decisions are made in a certain way?
How would he defend it to the public?
As for the 4 issues - I think they were specifically chosen, to prove a political point.
Dr M is trying to hint at something (or someone) in the Abdullah administration, that he probably feels is "meddling".
People whom Dr M has termed as "people with other agendas" - although I don't know why he still desists from mentioning specific names.
And if that point is proven, it may well prove that the Abdullah administration is not as transparent or incorruptible, as it claims.
That's the point of the 4 issues. It's a credibility challenge - the weaknesses have to be addressed or it will cast doubts amongst the political parties and the electorate, that the country is being well run.
As for other issues related to the concerns of the rakyat, Dr M has been equally critical - perhaps, less repetitively, though.
Amongst others, he's mentioned that the fuel hike should not have happened, the extent of pump-priming in the economy for higher growth, allowing our currency appreciation to avoid burdening the rakyat on imported items, why certain perceptibly corrupt Ministers have not beeen removed, etc.
Some of these things are directly related to the rakyat - although they're more economic, in nature. But then again, that has always been Dr M's emphasis and forte.
Even issues like education and health are economic and wealth-related, too, in one sphere or another.
He's not very strong on issues like judicial independence, water quality, crime rate, police reforms, environmental damage, etc.
Theoretically, these issues should matter for the rakyat and should be a main part of determining whether our Government gets re-elected - or not.
But for most parts of our history, it's the economy that's the decisive factor, for Malaysians. That's their vote-breaker - nothing else comes close.
(And perhaps, that's why we deserve that we get)
And Dr Mahathir knows this.
I so agree with you on this, Stingray dearest!
You do have a sharp mind! Have you tried writing in to the newspapers? Perhaps, become another 'Razak Baginda'?
Take care ya? Have a great weekend!
Times have changed, IMHO, any split within will never be as bad as Mahathir-Anwar in 1998, nor Mahathir-KuLi&Musa.
In the years preceding the Mahathir-Anwar fallout (if you were already working back then in a Malay owned company), even in the workplace, office politics were aligned according to the Mahathir or Anwar camps. At that time, you have 2 charismatic leaders with their own fanatically loyal followers. They were both active politicians, with the power to dispense patronage.
Today, neither the stakes nor emotion is running so high. What resentment there are towards AAB and KJ will be tempered by bread and butter issues and fighting for a piece of the 9MP pie. As long as there is no struggle with the Najib camp, there won't be any major split.
Pixie:
I think you're biased and you over-flatter me, Pixie dear. I'm nowhere near as qualified as Razak Baginda.
As for the newspaper bit, there was an offer before,...but they never followed up after that. Perhaps, my style of writing did not suit the newspaper profile or standard. :)
Babu:
You're right, bro'.
It'll never be as intense as the Mahathir/Anwar split ever again. That was a split at the people level - not just within UMNO.
And thank God, if nothing like that ever comes about again. Those years were difficult and traumatic on the nation.
However, an UMNO split will still have a significant impact on the Malays and UMNO.
Especially when tactics/attacks get dirty and under-handed and gives credence to the Opposition's persuasion that the ruling party of the day, is morally bankrupt - because of what they're willing to do to each other, for power.
I'm still not willing to underestimate Dr Mahathir yet. This man's a lion in the political arena.
The only way to achieve peace and unity within UMNO, (at least since 1981) is with his consent.
Otherwise, he'll stop at nothing to achieve his objectives - and may God help those whom he's looking to eliminate.
Because he's never failed yet, against anyone. And I have a feeling he doesn't intend to start now.
If, as you say, the 4 issues were specifically chosen to prove a political point, that "the Abdullah administration is not as transparent or incorruptible, as it claims", then isn't it rather pointless, because who is naive enough to believe that the claims are true?
Why call for answers on 4 issues to prove something that should be so obvious to everyone in the first place.
In any event, the focus should first be on the decisions. If the decisions are acceptable, then who cares how many people have "meddled" to bring those decisions into fruition? I am indifferent to Mahaleel continuing to become CEO of Proton (didn't he give us the Proton Juara and wanted to diversify into bicycles?); it's not the first time an asset or company was disposed for 1 ringgit/euro/dollar especially if it goes with sackloads of debt; if by ditching the bridge, we put more ringgit into hospitals, fine by me.
If the decisions are clearly unacceptable, then let's have a discussion about the meddlers.
Because the issues seem so narrow, and that we lay citizenry need to divine the intended target(s) through clouds of "hints", it really seems more about one gang fighting another gang over, as babu puts it, pieces of the 9MP pie, than it is about exposing the incredible claims that this govt is transparent or clean. The criticisms themselves fail the credibility test.
If you want a real "credibility challenge" with an economic dimension, then address the IPP contracts that TNB was allegedly forced to sign. Pass a law in Parliament making void those contracts, and force the IPPs to compensate TNB with interest. This is one issue which affects nearly all the rakyat because we have had to take a hit on our tariffs. But I bet you even a Najib Administration will find an excuse not to repudiate the IPP contracts. (Talk about lembik.)
Having said that, I support fully Dr M's right to speak (and you're right, he has spoken out on macro-economic issues, which is great). But I disagree with you that Dr M and Pak Lah should go to a quiet corner somewhere and sort this out. I say let's have this out in the open, full public debate about all issues above and below the table, and let the chips fall where they may.
Anon 2
Anon 2:
The electorate believe in the claims and the promises when they voted the Government in, with a historic and landslide percentage of votes.
And that's why they're still hounding the Abdullah administration to fulfill the promises.
Naive? Maybe - but after 22 years of the Mahathir era and the last 5 years being filled with the trauma of the Reformasi era - everyone wanted to believe that change was possible.
Malaysians were hungry for a change and they threw in their votes, to give Pak Lah, the mandate for that change.
But coming back your point - deal with the decisions first, then the meddlers. I agree.
First, whether the decisions are acceptable. I think the question to ask here is: acceptable to whom? Whose yardstick do you use?
On Proton, not everyone looks at the issue in the same way.
On the Augusta sale - some argue that MV Augusta had valuable IP that could have been used to develop small engines for either small cc cars or motorbikes.
There was never a chance to prove this, as it was sold a year, after it was purchased for approximately RM500 million (with debts attached, as you pointed out).
Some argue that the price paid is cheap to own such IP engine technology and something could have been developed out of it.
Taking over something with debts - doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad thing - especially, if you can turn it around and make more money out of it.
Yes, things have been sold at 1 Euro before - but those are perhaps, assets which no one would have wanted and which has no value.
But was the same true of MV Augusta? Was Gevi SpA the only company that wanted it?
Was there even any Malaysian company offered to buy it, considering that it was a sale of a Malaysian asset?
On the AP and "national car" issue - some of the questions are valid.
Why were there so many APs given out to so few entrepreneurs? Why was there a need for a "middleman" with APs? Why has the Minister gone unpunished?
Why were some of the Naza CKD cars with 40% local component only, regarded as "national cars" and received the same treatment as Proton?
How does Perodua have a national car status too, when it is 51% owned by Japanese companies?
And how has this affected Proton sales? (This one is obvious la kan,...)
On the bridge issue - we did not ditch it, because we needed more funds for development - like for hospitals - we called it off, because the negotiation went wrong - when it started including the sand and airspace sale.
Apparently, the offer came from our side, without it being asked for by Singapore, initially.
We even lost RM100 million in compensation monies to Gerbang Perdana, for the cancellation. For absolutely nothing!
On the above premises, all these are valid questions that deserve good answers and accountability. I think if we took a poll, half of the Malaysians would think so.
That should give enough basis, to go after the alleged "meddlers".
But that's an issue we shall leave to Dr Mahathir - because he's the political maestro here.
On the TNB issue, I don't think it's as easy as passing an Act of Parliament, to frustrate the original contracts.
Doing something like that would prove the arbitrariness of the Government, in observing its terms of agreements with the private sector.
It would scare off foreign private sector parties from investing or doing business with the Government in Malaysia.
If contracts can be arbitrarily frustrated by the Government, what protection do these companies have that their investments would be safe?
The mistake is in the original negotiation with IPPs (or the lack thereof).
Now, at best, you can only vary the terms of the agreements by negotiating with the IPPs - for the remaining period.
As for this going into public debate, there will be no rational debate (based on the facts) if the Abdullah administration does not reply to the specific questions posed.
Dr Mahathir will continue discrediting the credibility of the Abdullah administration (until he gets what he wants) and correspondingly, Abdullah's side will continue unearthing the dirt from the past, to discredit Dr Mahathir and his previous administration (and hence, his credibility)
UMNO will split into two and the winner shall take all and the loser shall lose everything.
That's the way it's always been in UMNO - until you're forgiven by the powers-that-be.
It will either lead to the fall of the current Prime Minister or the destruction of the legacy of a former one. Or worse still, both.
And most of all, it is the everyday Malaysians that will suffer the consequences of all these - in economic and development terms.
And while our senior politicians are all busy exercising their rights to free speech and mutual discrediting of each other - they would have shortchanged all Malaysians, of their obligations and promises of good governance.
Like they have repeatedly done before, in the past.
To each his own preferred conclusion of the saga.
I'm just tired of seeing these political splits or dramas, every 10 years or so.
It's draining and it's unnecessary. And it's certainly not beneficial to Malaysians, in general.
Thanks for the reverbs, Stingray. You ought to be a spin-doctor yourself - if you're not already.
Permit me to say, however, that I think you've spun off your orbit on one count - "forget half of the election promises - it's not politically doable in UMNO"
That's never good enough, bro. Promises 90% of the people shuffled their feet to the ballot based on those promises. Whose business is it to see if those can promises are viable in UMNO or not?
Remember, UMNO doesn't equate to the entire country, however unfortunate that reality is now.
I'm not attacking your views brother, but I have to say the "give it time" philosophy doesn't hold water.
If those spin-doctors were to be blamed, why weren't they removed?
Because to a large extent those (unfulfilled) promises worked. Nevermind the accountability on delivering on those promises itself.
And remember, it was Pak Lah himself who said he aspired to be a Prime Minister for all Malaysians. So far, that promise too has fallen short.
Giving him the benefit of the doubt must have a sell-by date.
The unfortunate thing I that we Malaysians have a short memory span. When at the ballot we easily forget the good, as well as the not-so-good.
Keropok:
Thanks.
But I'm just stating the facts as I see it.
Am not spinning - I have nothing to gain, because I'm not on anyone's side on this issue. Am not in any camp and nor in any political party.
Yes, I agree with you that it's not good enough that election promises are not kept.
That's why I called it "over-promising" by the Abdullah administration - when you don't have the political will (nor the expected speed) that the people expect.
Whether the "give it time" philosophy holds water or not - I'm not talking from theory here as I used to be a lobbyist for a NGO.
It takes them YEARS to act on things that are non-contentious and logical (this applies equally to both Mahathir and Abdullah administrations), because sometimes, decisions are only made at the PM's level.
It will take much more time for the things that are politically contentious - like shaking up the civil service with lay-offs to improve productivity and going on a corruption "witch-hunt" within the Cabinet, the party and the civil service.
I think even the Young Turks in the Abdullah administration initially underestimated what it takes to "persuade" the civil service to do things.
In its current form, they can frustrate a Minister's efforts for years.
As for why the "spin-doctors" were not removed after the election "over-promising" stunt - that's not a question I can answer.
Perhaps, their boss doesn't think it warrants such a removal.
Politicians don't usually complain about the huge number of votes/seats which they get - but they will complain when saddled with the burden of implementing the "over-promises".
Yes, UMNO doesn't equate to the entire country - but by convention, the Prime Minister is chosen from the UMNO ranks.
A top-level crisis in UMNO is always a crisis for the country. History will reflect this to be true.
On the "sell-by" date - as in the past (except for the Reformasi era), it's how Malaysians feel about the economy, that will reflect their voting patterns in the next election.
I'm quite certain that the Abdullah administration will not get 90% of the seats in Parliament, again - due to the economy and unkept election promises.
There will certainly be "protest-votes" from those suffering from the economic effects.
But I think they will still retain three quarters majority in Parliament, at the very least. That is, if the UMNO split does not escalate to epic proportions.
Furthermore, the lack of a viable alternative Government has always plagued this country.
Even if we don't want to vote Barisan - who will believe that a coalition consisting of DAP, Keadilan and PAS can run this country?
They're strange bedfellows with no common vision for Malaysia.
Good points Stingray - and I do appreciate the banter.
This is healthy debate we hardly come across... and you strike me as a sensible, knowledgable chap with his head in the right place.
Keep on rolling' hombre...
Enjoying the World Cup?
Keropok:
Thanks. It takes two to have a healthy debate, my friend.
I like people who are interested in seeing multiple sides of the story and in seeking the truth.
There are some out there who simply argue just to win, at the expense of fairness, balance and intellectual integrity.
It's harder to have a healthy debate with them - because they've already made up their minds, regardless.
They're just there to convert your opinions, to theirs. You can't have a debate with closed minds.
On another note, have not really watched the World Cup yet - will start tonight, because I'm supporting Japan.
Yeah, so I like untypical underdogs. So what's new? ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home