Mahathir’s big comeback

SEPT 11 — When Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad retired in 2003, everyone hailed him as a statesman; someone who did not choose the LKY-route. You know, in Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew maintained a direct line to the Singapore govt by keeping a cabinet post — first as Senior Minister and now Minister Mentor.

Nevertheless, less than two years after he stepped down, he began to attack his hand-picked successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, through his popular blog. The man who started the MSC and went after websites that attacked his administration suddenly discovered that the cyberspace worked both ways — he could use cyberspace to after Abdullah regardless of what the mainstream media says.

Mahathir played a major part in Abdullah’s downfall. It is almost certain that his son would have been appointed a full cabinet minister if he had won the Umno Youth’s post and it was the Mahathir name that gave the son the deputy minister’s post and his position in Umno Youth.

Mahathir’s influence has now gone further than the Malay vote — Subra is using Mahathir’s name to try to win MIC votes for the party’s deputy presidency. It does not matter that MIC blamed him for marginalising the Indians during his 22 year rule which directly lead to the rise of Hindraf. It does not matter that Samy Vellu said Mahathir “did nothing” for the Indians.

Here lies the supreme irony. Why is Mahathir —the main all Indian politicians attack as doing “nothing” to help the Indians — still able to draw support in MIC? The fact that Samy and the MIC Youth Wing had to ask Mahathir to stay out of the MIC contest suggests that Mahathir is still influential in BN politics, not just Umno politics. It also shows how shallow Malaysians, especially the non-Malays, are.

People forget easily, as Mahathir reminds us. How true. Here is the man who ruled Malaysia for 22 years with a big stick. And he was not afraid to use it. Operasi Lalang, Memali, BMF scandal, Lingam judge-fixing affair, sacking of Supreme Court judges, the Anwar black eye incident, executive dominance of parliament, human rights abuses, privatisation which lead to road tolls, and more all happened when Mahathir was in charge. Yet today many Malaysians look back at the “good old days”. If those days were the “good old days” then get me out of here!

This problem is not unique to us — when Suharto died, many people praised him including the current president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono — all the thousands who died under his military dictatorship were forgotten instantly. I will not be surprise if one of his sons becomes the Indonesian president in the future.

Why is it that we cannot confront our history honestly? How can’t we look at our recent history and admit to ourselves that all of today’s political problems — from racial to deepening religious divide — are caused by policies implemented in the past one or two decade.

We let the leaders of the era off the hook so easily that it is as if we are a people doomed to repeat all the mistakes made in the recent past. We forgive easily because as Mahathir said famously “Melayu mudah lupa”.

Mahathir is the master of understanding the political psyche of the typical Malaysian. When he resigned back in 2003, all was instantly forgiven. All the mistakes and policies were instantly forgotten.

I don’t deny we need to look at the good and the bad. All I am saying is that Malaysians tend to look at the good and completely ignore the bad. Perhaps it’s human nature to forget the bad but by looking at the good and misreading the past, we are bound to repeat all the terrible mistakes of the recent past.

If Subra wins the deputy presidency tomorrow, Mahathir successfully deposed two BN leaders in “retirement”, i.e. Abdullah and Samy. In the meantime, I can’t wait for one of the two MCA camps to get his endorsement.

Battle between the old and new MCA

Sacked deputy president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek must consider the interest of the party and back down from a destructive confrontation with president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat if he does not wish to see the party broken into pieces.

DATUK Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek is half right about the leadership conflict in MCA. It is not about him or Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat.

It is not even a “class conflict” as claimed by his supporters. Dr Chua, a medical doctor, is hardly a grassroots leader.

It is a tussle between the old and new MCA. It is a tussle between a group of party leaders and members who want to keep the old political and business nexus alive which can be used to shelter tainted leaders and their wrongdoings and those who want the party to regain its political potency.

Some of us had poked fun at a few ex-leaders of the party for not being able to stand up against the excesses and arrogance of its coalition partner.

They were seen as carrying too much baggage to be able to do much without being told to shut up or risk their own personal scandals being exposed.

Ironically, some of the party leaders and delegates are striving to do exactly the same — reinstating morally tainted leaders back to the leadership hierarchy.

More than a thousand delegates may be enough to challenge the power equilibrium of the party.

But can they help to restore the battered image of MCA which has been long associated with its deep interest in the old patronage system?

Can these delegates help the party recapture the seats it lost in the last general election by continuing to hold on to the old MCA?

The involvement of past MCA leaders in the PKFZ fiasco is a prime example. So far, none of them has volunteered enough information to help with the investigation.

Can these tainted leaders project a solid moral authority to help ensure that this Government remains clean, honest and responsible?

Hence, the sacking of Dr Chua has given a chance for some leaders and members of the old network who were uncomfortable with the recent PKFZ expose to unite and pool together their resources in trying to return MCA back to its status quo.

The old MCA would have been able to continue to shield them from any further expose and prosecution.

Dr Chua was a good leader who was involved in a career-ending sex scandal. He calls it unfortunate, we call it tragic.

He should have accepted that the final curtain of his political career had drawn down.

He should be grateful that the party was ready to groom his son and had even allowed him to take over Dr Chua’s former parliamentary seat.

A writer asks “Can a minority of individuals punish a duly elected leader proven to have been forgiven, reflected by the voting support given to him by MCA central delegates despite them knowing the full background of Dr Chua’s controversy incident?”

Calling it an incident is a joke. But a larger question which must be asked by the members is whether the people can accept Dr Chua’s stewardship of MCA?

In the last general election, a number of leaders who had enjoyed unsurpassed support from their party grassroots were easily defeated by less prominent opponents.

Public perception is most crucial in politics. Politicians often ignore this fact at their own peril.

As a prominent leader, Dr Chua has to be fully aware of the power of perception and he must be brave enough to put his party’s interest before his.

His sex scandal does not dilute his political contribution to his state and country. But it has created a blot on his credibility which makes it detrimental for him to continue leading his party, especially in a country where some moral guardians cannot even tolerate a beer drinking model.

The current dispute between Dr Chua and Ong is very destructive to the party. However, the fault does not lie with the two leaders alone.

The disciplinary committee should not have allowed Dr Chua to contest in the last party election until he was fully cleared. They did not act in his best interest.

It would have been better for Dr Chua to be fully cleared of his offence before being allowed to make a political comeback. For this, we call it unfortunate. It was a comeback made too early.

After his election as the deputy president of MCA, only Dr Chua can confirm if he had put undue pressure on his president to consider making him one of the four ministers or be given other prominent positions.

If Dr Chua was aware of the power of public perception, he should have exercised more restraint and understanding that his request would have put the party president in a very difficult position.

The ball is now in Dr Chua’s court. His next action will determine if he has reached a point of no return. He has to choose between mediation and confrontation.

The latter, supported by those who are rallying behind the call to “Save Chua – Knock out Ong” may end up seeing MCA break into pieces and vanish into a permanent political oblivion.

This is a sad episode for the second biggest party in Barisan.

The party leadership should have focused on redeeming its political image by helping and supporting its new president to tackle the biggest financial scandal in the history of Malaysia, and not distracting him with an internal uprising and threats to displace him from his party position.

Ong must be given a chance to prove his worth in the PKFZ investigation.