MCA PRESIDENT DATUK SERI DR CHUA SOI LEK,HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO RESIGN. IT’S TIME FOR THE MCA TO REKINDLE THEIR OLD GLORY
MCA seperti hilang akal apabila Ahli Dewan Undangan Negeri (Adun) Kemelah Dato’ Ayub Rahmat menyarankan agar Johor menjadi negeri pertama melaksanakan hukum hudud di Malaysia.
Presidennya Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek menjadi tidak tentu arah, meracau dan tidak dapat berdiri dengan betul seperti orang mabuk dan kurang siuman.
Soi Lek bertambah resah dan gelisah apabila Ayub menyatakan hudud yang dicadangkan itu hendaklah meliputi semua kaum di Johor berbanding dengan Kelantan yang hanya mahu melaksanakan hukum itu ke atas masyarakat Islam sahaja.
Maka tidak hairanlah setiap kali timbul isu hudud, Soi Lek cepat-cepat mencantas idea tersebut. Takut benar Soi Lek dengan hudud sehinggakan beliau mengugut untuk partinya keluar Barisan Nasional (BN) jika hukum hudud dilaksanakan.
Orang yang tidak bersalah dan tidak melakukan apa-apa kesalahan tidak perlu takut dengan hudud tetapi orang seperti Soi Lek yang pernah terlibat dengan salah laku seks sudah tentu merasa takut.
Namun penentangan keras Soi Lek terhadap hukum hudud mungkin dapat diterima kerana beliau sendiri mengaku tentang kesalahannya melakukan hubungan seks dengan seorang wanita di sebuah hotel di Johor pada tahun 2008.
Umno takut kepada MCA
Tetapi bagaimana pula sikap para pemimpin Umno yang lain tentang cadangan rakan mereka sendiri mengenai pelaksanaan hukum hudud ini? Kenapa tidak bersuara, adakah mereka takut kepada MCA?
Umno lebih takut kepada MCA berbanding takut kepada Allah swt. Atau adakah Umno menganggap undang-undang sivil lebih ‘supreme’ dari undang-undang hudud ciptaan Allah?
Dengan menganggap seseorang atau benda lain atau suatu konsep sebagai wujud yang setara atau lebih tinggi daripada Allah merupakan satu cabang dari syirik.
Allah menyebutkan dalam Al Quran bahawa dosa syirik tidak akan diampuni. Allah tidak mengampuni dosa syirik tetapi Dia mengampuni dosa selain itu bagi sesiapa yang dikehendakiNya.
Maksud firman Allah dalam ayat 48 Surah An-Nisaa’: Sesungguhnya Allah tidak akan mengampuni (dosa) kerana mempersekutukannya (syirik) dan Dia mengampuni apa (dosa) selain (syirik) itu bagi sesiapa yang Dia kehendaki. Barangsiapa mempersekutukan Allah maka sungguh dia telah berbuat dosa yang besar.”
Justeru kita ingin bertanya adakah pemimpin Umno juga sudah hilang akal dan tidak dapat berfikir secara waras berhubung cadangan Ayub yang dikemukakan dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri pada 20 Jun lalu?
Kenyataan Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Tetap Agama Johor, Dato’ Zainal Abidin Osman sedikit sebanyak memberi gambaran tentang pendirian Umno tentang hudud.
Beliau menyifatkan apa yang diungkapkan oleh Ayub itu adalah satu cadangan dan tidak pernah dibincang di peringkat parti (Umno).
Berdasarkan kenyataan ini juga jelas Umno tidak mempunyai hasrat untuk melaksanakan hudud tetapi kenapa pemimpin Umno yang juga mengaku beragama Islam enggan dan takut melaksanakan hudud.
Barangkali hukum hudud lebih adil dan saksama tanpa mengenal darjat dan kedudukan berbanding dengan undang-undang sivil yang mudah dimanipulasi untuk menjaga kepentingan mereka seperti dalam penciptaan kes liwat dan video lucah.
PAS sokong
Sikap PAS bila berdepan dengan isu ini adalah jelas. Saranan Ayub itu disambut baik oleh Mursyidul Am PAS Tuan Guru Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat yang mengucapkan tahniah dan mengalu-alukan pelaksanaannya.
“Biar Johor menjadi negeri pertama melaksanakan hudud dan insya’Allah Kelantan akan menyusul kemudian,” kata Nik Aziz sambil menambah, pemimpin Umno itu mempunyai keberanian untuk mencadangkan perkara ini.
Bagaimana pula sikap badan bukan kerajaan (NGO) Islam yang mendabik dada kononnya merekalah pejuang sebenar untuk menjaga kesucian agama Islam.
Kenapa Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) yang memperjuangkan nasib bangsa Melayu dan mahu mendaulatkan Islam tidak menyuarakan bantahan terhadap Soi Lek?
Kenapa Jalur Tiga (Jati) yang mempunyai moto dan dasar perjuangan IMR (Islam, Melayu dan Raja) berdiam diri apabila Soi Lek mengeluarkan kenyataan yang disifatkan sebagai menghina Islam itu.
Ada banyak lagi NGO Islam yang memperjuangkan isu murtad dan menentang aktiviti LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Biseksual dan Transgender) tetapi apabila berdepan isu hudud menjadi dayus dan mandul.
Kilang fitnah
Kilang fitnah
Tanpa pelaksanaan hudud, pemimpin-pemimpin Umno-BN mudah mencipta dan mengilang fitnah, memalsukan bahan bukti terhadap tuduhan liwat dan salah laku seks dan menerbitkan video-video lucah secara meluas.
Terbaru kes Ketua MCA Melaka, Gan Tian Loo yang mendakwa Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang Lim Guan Eng mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan bekas stafnya.
Lim dan isterinya Betty Chew yang juga Adun Kota Laksamana dengan sekeras-kerasnya menafikan tuduhan ini, tuduhan yang dibuat dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri Melaka.
Beberapa bulan lalu, Timbalan Presiden PKR, Mohamed Azmin Ali juga menjadi mangsa fitnah serupa – fitnah yang standard – kononnya terlibat dengan salah laku seks dengan seorang wanita.
Keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Kuala Lumpur yang membebaskan Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dari tuduhan liwat terhadap bekas pembantunya, Saiful Bukhari Mohd Azlan membuktikan terdapat pemalsuan bahan bukti dan wujudnya konspirasi politik.
Skandal seks dan liwat yang dipelopori oleh mantan perdana menteri Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad ini sudah menjadi budaya rakyat Malaysia dan menjadi senjata tajam untuk menjatuhkan musuh politik mereka.
Jika hudud dilaksanakan, pemimpin-pemimpin seperti ini tidak mudah mencipta fitnah, blogger-blogger juga tidak berani menyebarkan fitnah dan konspirasi-konspirasi jahat dapat dibendung.
Ketakutan terhadap hudud merupakan satu persepsi negatif yang ditanam sejak sekian lama oleh pemimpin-pemimpin Umno. Pemimpin- pemimpin Umnolah yang menakut-nakutkan rakan parti komponen dalam BN tentang hudud.
Pemimpin-pemimpin Umno ini juga yang berjaya menakut-nakutkan rakyat dengan menggunakan media massa yang dikuasai mereka sehingga rakyat termakan dengan dakyah mereka bahawa hukum hudud itu zalim, kejam dan tidak bertamadun.
Persepsi inilah yang perlu diubah walaupun sukar!
It’s time for the MCA to rekindl their old glory
Both father and son are in the wrong jobs
related articlehttp://malaysiaonlinetoday.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/najib-says-soi-lek-still-%E2%80%98winnable%E2%80%99-we-are-partners-in-sex-life/
How long does it take to win an ideological war? A confrontation between the armies of ruling elites is conventional and therefore comprehensible: it lasts as long as the powder is dry and the will of the subaltern to fight for the interests of his general can be sustained.A war of ideas is circumscribed by different ponderables and imponderables: conflicting definitions of justice; a vision often compromised by power pitched against a dream stretched into fantasy by a surreal sense of self. The ideological Armageddon starts in the mind, so it is difficult to know when it began. But since it descends to the street we generally know when it ends.Dr Chua’s jibes against Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat during the debate but continued to maintain that under Dr Chua’s leadership, support from the Chinese community had nosedived.He said he was not given to political posturing and would “call a spade a spade” even if his words were to ruffle the feathers of those within the party.Repeatedly pointing out that he was now no longer a person of stature within MCA, Ong continued to stand by his reading of the community’s support for the party, saying it was based on his personal observation.“There should be sufficient latitude for anybody, including you, to interpret what I said. But I do understand that in our kind of partisan politics, people can hardly swallow the truth.
How long does it take to win an ideological war? A confrontation between the armies of ruling elites is conventional and therefore comprehensible: it lasts as long as the powder is dry and the will of the subaltern to fight for the interests of his general can be sustained.A war of ideas is circumscribed by different ponderables and imponderables: conflicting definitions of justice; a vision often compromised by power pitched against a dream stretched into fantasy by a surreal sense of self. The ideological Armageddon starts in the mind, so it is difficult to know when it began. But since it descends to the street we generally know when it ends.Dr Chua’s jibes against Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat during the debate but continued to maintain that under Dr Chua’s leadership, support from the Chinese community had nosedived.He said he was not given to political posturing and would “call a spade a spade” even if his words were to ruffle the feathers of those within the party.Repeatedly pointing out that he was now no longer a person of stature within MCA, Ong continued to stand by his reading of the community’s support for the party, saying it was based on his personal observation.“There should be sufficient latitude for anybody, including you, to interpret what I said. But I do understand that in our kind of partisan politics, people can hardly swallow the truth.
Here is Former MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat who could have brought back dignity to their ranks but they brought him down!What went into their heads? What was going through their minds? Mind you, I don’t think every MCA When asked to explain further on his statement yesterday that he had more names to disclose of those involved in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal, however, Ong declined to elaborate but merely explained his role in the probe during his tenure as transport minister.Ong also dismissed talk that he might leave MCA due to his repeated clashes with Dr Chua, saying that if he did, he would be betraying his personal ideals when he joined the party in 1981.“In 1981, when I joined MCA as an ordinary member, I did so not because of Dr Chua or any individual but because I was convinced by the ideals of the party.“If at all I were to leave the party because of Dr Chua, it would, in a way, betray my commitment and conviction towards the party’s ideals.
“What really [concerns] me more today is my constituency work,” the Pandan MP firmly said.Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat is the only visible MCA leader today who dares to call a spade, a spade. And you MCA people can’t appreciate nor treasure that? Just recently one of your leaders lied through his teeth aboutthe Tung Shin teargas incident (I should know, I was there!) and now with the 1 Care controversy that’sgoing to rob us blind, he’s still around?Please, MCA, look at what you have reduced yourself to? You, the present crop of leaders wantto compare yourself to others. Only two of you are facing trial for the PKFZ debacle, on charges ofcorruption. How many from the other side have been incarcerated for upholding the truth? How manyof them had their health compromised, dignity stripped and years taken away because of the injusticeinflicted, something you were party to, for just keeping quiet. Unlike the rest of you, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat exposed corruption and how did you reward him? What does it say about the MCA when a leader is broughtdown by his very own people for upholding the truth?
Oxford, United Kingdom - A survey has revealed that the people of Libya may not be keen on democracy after all. The “Arab Spring” has been celebrated in the Western world as a struggle of democracy against dictatorship. Often the implicit assumption was that what the revolutionaries who were trying to overthrow their authoritarian regimes wanted was a Western-style parliamentary democracy. So when only 15 per cent of those surveyed in Libya say they want democracy established in a year, compared with 40 per cent who profess a preference for a “strong leader”, it’s a bit of a let-down for Western cheerleaders of the upheavals in the Arab world. Moreover, apparently only about a third of those polled wanted democracy even in five years’ time. According to the BBC, one of the academics involved with the poll said that “the survey suggested Libyans lacked the knowledge of how democracy works”. As Libyans have just emerged from a long and reportedly oppressive dictatorship, that is probably true, but that very lack of knowledge may just as well have elicited an overly optimistic view of democracy.
The results of democratic government are also apparent from news reports from other countries. Tortuous or seemingly patronising explanations offered for the preferences revealed by the Libyans demonstrate our reluctance to confront the reality that many of “the people” – not just in Libya but everywhere else – may not really want democracy, or may have deeply ambivalent or conflicted attitudes towards democracy, despite its apparent triumph as a political system.
Democracy has emerged as such a compelling political idea in recent decades, that to express anything other than unquestioning devotion to it risks being taken to be political heresy. Amartya Sen wrote that, despite the many momentous events of the 20th century, he had no difficulty in identifying the “emergence of democracy as the pre-eminently acceptable form of governance” as the century’s most important development. Democracy does not mean just elections. It includes certain values as well as expectations about the social, political and economic results it might produce. The Libyan survey results seem less awkward when one considers the fact that what people really want is good governance, however delivered. The power of democracy as a form of governance is based on the argument that while it may not be perfect, democracy is most likely to produce the best outcome in terms of governance, compared to the alternatives.
Greater exposure to democracy
Libyans certainly have had little exposure to democracy. It is most interesting therefore to compare their responses to questions about democracy with the first ever simultaneous survey on attitudes to democracy conducted a few years ago in five South Asian countries – India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka – which collectively have a lot more experience of democracy than Libya. (State of Democracy in South Asia, Oxford University Press, 2008).
The South Asian survey revealed widespread support for democracy, but also revealed some fractures in the depth of that support. For example, 62 per cent of those surveyed said they preferred democracy to any other form of government, while only ten per cent clearly preferred dictatorship in certain circumstances. However, 28 per cent of respondents – quite a significant proportion – said that it did not matter to people like themselves whether the government was democratic or non-democratic. About a third of respondents, also a high proportion, did not understand the question or did not give any response.
The results are even more interesting – and worrying in terms of support for democracy – when one compares the specific responses in India and Pakistan. Support for democracy was weakest in Pakistan among all five countries surveyed. The authors of the report pointed out that when the survey was conducted, Pakistan was under authoritarian military rule. It is unclear how exactly that influenced the responses. When asked an open-ended question about what democracy meant to them, most people in both India and Pakistan responded very positively to the idea of democracy. Only seven per cent of Indians and eight per cent of Pakistanis described democracy in negative terms.
However, when it came to the question of preferring democracy to other (interpreted as authoritarian) forms of governance, the results were different. While 70 per cent of Indians clearly preferred democracy, only 37 per cent of Pakistanis did so. Similarly, only nine per cent of Indians expressed a clear preference for dictatorship, to 14 per cent of Pakistanis. One may put this down to the relative inexperience of Pakistan with a functioning democracy, as has been suggested in the case of the Libyan survey. However, just as in Libya, the experience of living under dictatorship could also have boosted support for democracy, even if only as an aspirational ideal, especially if the experience of dictatorship had been particularly negative.
Does democracy matter?
The third type of response on this question in the South Asian survey provokes us to think even more carefully about interpreting the strength of support for democracy, even after several decades of experience with it. A staggering 49 per cent of Pakistanis said that it did not matter to them whether the government was democratic or not. Even more surprisingly, 21 per cent of Indian respondents also said that it did not matter to people such as themselves whether the government was democratic or dictatorial. Added to the fact that a third of respondents offered no response at all, many people in countries with substantial experience of democracy or with significant experience of both democracy and dictatorship appear to share the Libyans’ ambivalence about democracy as the preferred form of governance.
This ambivalence is probed further in the South Asian survey by a process of elimination of respondents who say they approve of democracy, but would entertain authoritarian rule in some circumstances, do not care one way or the other, or who like the idea of rule by the army or a monarch, a “strong leader”, or government by technocratic experts. All five South Asian countries start out with broad support for democracy, but as soon as this process of elimination is applied, unequivocal support for democracy falls away sharply everywhere. Eventually unqualified support for democracy turns out to be in single digits everywhere other than India, and even in India it is a disappointing 19 per cent.
| “With all its experience of democracy, nearly 60 per cent of Indians still did not express unequivocal faith in democracy.” |
Libyans would be interested to know that across the five South Asian countries, two-thirds of respondents also expressed a yearning for the rule of a “strong leader who does not have to bother about elections”. There was also an astonishingly high level of support for the option of military rule, even in India. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, who have both experienced military rule (and hence know its negatives), 60 per cent of respondents endorsed military rule. Even in India, which prides itself in never having allowed the army to venture out of civilian government control in more than sixty years, 23 per cent of respondents approved of army rule. The higher the level of education, the lower was the support for military rule, but as illiterate respondents across the five countries registered a high of 57 per cent support for military rule, even after falling off significantly with levels of education, 22 per cent of those who were graduates and post-graduates were still endorsing military rule.
The South Asian survey classified respondents as “strong democrats”, “weak democrats” and “non-democrats”. A “strong democrat” was defined as someone who expressed support for rule by elected representatives and always prefers it to non-democratic forms of government, while “non-democrats” equally clearly prefer non-democratic government. Across the five countries, 26 per cent were “strong democrats”, while 22 per cent were “non-democrats”. The highest proportion of “strong democrats” were in India (41 per cent) and lowest in Pakistan (ten per cent). This means, however, that with all its experience of democracy, nearly 60 per cent of Indians still did not express unequivocal faith in democracy. Indeed, 15 per cent of Indians were clearly categorised as “non-democrats”.
Most crucial are the figures for those described as “weak democrats” – respondents who expressed support for democracy, but did not reject various non-democratic forms of government. On average in the five South Asian countries, 52 per cent of respondents were “weak democrats”, indicating a worryingly high proportion of ambivalence about democracy, as these are people who could go either way at any crucial moment of decision about regime type. Even in India, 43 per cent of respondents fell in the “weak democrats” category, not that far off from Pakistan, where the proportion was 49 per cent.
Libya’s recent history is very different from the diverse political experience of South Asia, and Libyans being asked about their political preferences have emerged from a long spell of dictatorship with no direct experience of electoral politics. It is true that they do not know “how democracy works”, but what is interesting is that their ambivalence and inconsistent responses to democracy is shared by many others who do know “how democracy works”, or, indeed, how it doesn’t.
Speculation is swirling again that Barisan Nasional component parties, MCA and MIC, are toying with the idea to opt out of the long established national coalition that has governed Malaysia since 1957 due to differing reasons.
Whether they plan to join the Pakatan Rakyat led by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim or choose to stay independent or form a new coalition is not clear yet
Such talk is not new and has blown in and out of the political arena over the past years, largely ignored as few Malaysians believe the pair could ever dare to make a break with the seemingly almighty UMNO - their BN big boss and some say 'big bully'.
Main grouses still the same: 'Telur' the likely 'gift' from voters
But now, pared down to their last card and with the next general election due to be held within the next 10 months, the leaders at both MIC and MCA have no choice but to confront the pro and cons of such a move that will surely bring to an end the decades of easy living, special privileges, cushy income and extraordinary benefits.
The main grouse and grievance of the two parties is the increasing dominance and sway that UMNO holds over them that is causing its members to think of other options and alternatives.
MCA was once a cherished bastion of the Chinese community in the country but has now been witnessing a dwindle in the number of their members, and whilst MIC is, more or less, still intact, despite the emergence of Indian splinter groups representing the community, the days of the two BN parties in the governing coalition may be numbered.
MCA’s woes
According to MCA members, the party’s top honcho, Chua Soi Lek has warned and threatened UMNO hardliners that any attempt to implement “hudud” laws in Malaysia will spell the departure of the Chinese-based party from the national coalition for sure.Chua did not mince his words and party members are of the view that his push for a better deal for MCA and the Chinese community does not seem to have been met by UMNO especially his call for inclusiveness towards a Satu Malaysia concept.
In venting their anger and frustration, MCA members feel that despite decades of loyal support to BN, the Chinese-based party has still not been given due recognition and respect as an important component of BN.
The mounting frustration among MCA members is evident as calls for greater equality and a more important and prominent role by the party in the politics of Malaysia has so far not materialized.
It is largely these factors that a growing number of party members are beginning to discretely review and rethink the role of their party in the BN coalition.
While not openly voicing their intention to opt out of the BN coalition, the option is starting to look promising though the way and manner the party is to go about leaving BN is still yet to be ascertained.
While not a far-fetched option for the party, much will depend on how the situation in the country begins to shape up for the community in a number of key areas such as the business and economic climate and the role of Chinese education, the latter being a tacky, thorny issue within the BN.
MIC’s role in BN
Disclosure has been made by a senior MIC official that Pakatan’s top brass have been making overtures to woo the Indian party into the fold of the opposition. Of course, this could be doublespeak and it is more likely that the MIC has been approaching Pakatan.While not overtly, MIC officials, just like the MCA leadership, are up in arms over the dominance of UMNO within the coalition and are unable to understand how their voice has begun to get drowned within the government.
While talks are sporadic and on-going, it is still unclear and uncertain if the MIC will take up the offer from PR. Much will depend on what’s in it for them.
While earlier on, MIC, helmed by G. Palanivel, appeared unlikely to give up their role in the BN, they are however now beginning to warm up to the idea.
This is due largely to the treatment accorded to Bersih leader, S. Ambiga, and a number of other recent developments within the community, prompting the MIC to seriously look into what the terms and conditions PR are offering them.
The fact that that they are willing to engage in secret talks are a positive sign and indicator that they may want to jump ship, although like the MCA, the years of their faithfulness and loyalty might cause them to shy away from actually making such a move.
The emerging scenario: Anything can happen
UMNO, meanwhile, are greatly aware and watching with keen interest the shadow play that is taking place, and weighing their options and alternatives as well, as to how to shore up and rebuild their power base to the former era when under the presidency of Mahathir Mohammad.
But the winds of change continue to blow across the length and breadth of Malaysia and Malaysians are carefully following and monitoring closely these changes that are taking place as much is at stake for them.
The reason for Malaysian voters following closely these proceeding is because they are of the belief that, as the situation stands in the nation right now, anything can happen as of now.
No comments:
Post a Comment