Mengapa DAP Tak Pijak Gambar Anwar - Penganjur 16 September 2008

Mahukah DAP pijak gambar Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim yang jadi tukang canang ‘lompat parti 16 September'?

Jawabnya tentu sekali tidak. Sebabnya semua sedia maklum – ia untuk kepentingan politik bersama.

Rabu Setiausaha DAP Perak, Nga Kor Ming mengadakan sidang akhbar di bangunan parlimen untuk memohon maaf kepada rakyat Malaysia yang tersinggung dengan perbuatan beberapa pemimpin parti itu memijak poster wajah tiga anggota Bebas Dewan Undangan Negeri Perak semasa konvensyen parti itu di Ipoh Ahad lalu.

Kor Ming yang juga Ahli Parlimen Taiping terpaksa memohon maaf bagi pihak DAP setelah tindak tanduk mereka memijak gambar Hee Yit Fong (Jelapang), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) dan Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering dikecam hebat berbagai pihak termasuk oleh para Ahli Parlimen PKR.

Beliau memberi alasan perbuatan memijak itu bertujuan menunjukkan rasa keji terhadap tiga ADUN Perak itu kerana berpaling tadah daripada prinsip demokrasi, kawasan Parlimen mereka serta parti sehingga menyebabkan kejatuhan kerajaan pembangkang.

Kor Ming tegas berkata parti itu menentang budaya 'lompat parti'.

Ramai yang bertanya bagaimana agaknya bentuk kenyataan Setiausaha DAP Perak itu misalnya jika gerakan 16 September Anwar menjadi kenyataan dimana pakatan pembangkang menguasai kerajaan pusat kerana tindakan melompat para Ahli Parlimen BN.

Jawabnya seribu satu macam alasan akan diberi untuk ‘ menghalalkannya’.

Makanya memang menarik untuk mendengar Kor Ming mendakwa kesediaan memohon maaf itu kerana DAP adalah parti yang berbudi bahasa, dan tidak bertoleransi kepada pengkhianat rakyat.

''Ini adalah budaya yang tidak sihat dan kita 100 peratus tidak bersetuju kerana kita berpegang teguh kepada prinsip parti,'' katanya.

Nga Kor Ming berharap melalui kenyataan minta maaf itu isu pijak gambar itu akan dapat diselesaikan secepat mungkin.

''Kita manusia kadang-kadang ada buat silap, tetapi kita memohon maaf kepada rakyat Malaysia yang tersinggung perasaan," katanya.-2/12/2009

Stepping On Photos An Uncultured Act : Rais

2009-12-01 

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 1 (Bernama) -- Information Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim today described as uncultured and disrespectful of individual rights and democracy the action of DAP leaders stepping on a poster bearing the facial images of three former Pakatan opposition assemblymen now friendly to the Barisan Nasional (BN).
He said their action was not at all synonymous with Malaysian society or the principles of the Rukunegara (National Ideology) or the Federal Constitution.
The action of those in the DAP who stepped on the photographs of their former colleagues was totally uncultured and demeaning, he told reporters after launching a book, "Kebudayaan Malaysia: Sebuah Pengenalan" (Malaysian Culture: An Introduction), at the Craft Complex, here.
The poster bearing the facial images of Hee Yit Fong (Jelapang), Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi (Behrang) and Mohd Osman Jailu (Changkat Jering) was placed at the entrance to the convention hall where the Perak DAP held its annual convention yesterday, and delegates had to step on the poster to get to the meeting.
"This goes to show that politics is above everything else (for the DAP leaders and delegates) and they do not have any humanitarian feelings or respect for individuals and their democratic rights," Dr Rais said.
He said that if the DAP appreciated democratic values, it should accept the fact that the three assemblymen left their parties on the principles of their struggle.
"Why step on their photographs when entering the hall? The three of them can respond, if they want to, by placing the photographs of (DAP parliamentary leader) Lim Kit Siang along with his colleagues in the Pakatan opposition and stepping on them. How would that feel?" he said.
Dr Rais said acts depicting shallow thinking and ill-mannered politics such as this were unacceptable.

Kelantan Haruslah Utamakan Rakyat Bukan Kerajaan PAS Negeri

Kerajaan Kelantan harus pentingkan rakyat, bukannya politik kerajaan PAS di negeri itu, kata ahli Parlimen Bebas Pasir Mas, Datuk Ibrahim Ali mengulas kenyataan Exco negeri, Datuk Husam Musa yang tidak mengiktiraf pemberian wang ehsan hasil pengeluaran minyak oleh kerajaan Pusat.

Katanya terpulang kerajaan negeri jika mahu terus membawa isu royalti itu ke mahkamah tetapi ianya bukan boleh diselesaikan dalam masa singkat.

Ibrahim percaya, Husam sebenarnya mahu wang itu diberikan terus kepada negeri supaya boleh mereka gunakan mengikut kehendak kerajaan PAS Kelantan.

“Bagi saya, elok duit itu (wang ehsan) diterima sekarang supaya rakyat cepat dapat faedah. Kalau nak tunggu royalti, kena tunggu kes itu menang dulu. Ini ambil masa tak tahu entah bila. Ibarat sakit, kita kena ikhtiar dulu sebelum dapat doktor pakar,” katanya kepada Agendadaily.

Beliau mengalu-alukan keputusan kerajaan Pusat memberikan wang ehsan pada Kelantan mulai 2010 seperti diumumkan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak di Dewan Rakyat, Rabu.

“Rakyat Kelantan pasti gembira dan sambut baik keputusan ini. Sukanya ambo,” ujarnya.

Katanya, rakyat Kelantan yang terhimpit ekonomi akan dapat faedah melalui pemberian wang ehsan ini.

Ibrahim juga berharap wang berkenaan diurus tadbir dengan telus, menepati sasaran dan adil kepada semua rakyat Kelantan.

Bagaimanapun, Husam yang juga Pengerusi Jawatankuasa Ekonomi, Kewangan dan Kebajikan Kelantan dalam respons awalnya tidak mengiktiraf pembayaran wang ehsan sebaliknya bertegas bahawa kerajaan negeri tetap menuntut pembayaran royalti.

Katanya di Kota Bharu, kerajaan negeri menimbang melantik panel peguam untuk mengkali tindakan membatalkan perjanjian dengan Petronas yang ditandatangani pada 1975.

“Kita juga akan kaji ambil unjuksi terhadap syarikat yang beroperasi di kawasan pengeluran pesisir Kelantan di mahkamah luar negera iaitu Amerika Syarikat dan Kanada,” katanya.

"Namun, kerajaan negeri tidak menutup pintu rundingan dan sedia berunding dengan Kerajaan Pusat," katanya pada sidang media di pejabatnya.-4/11/2009

BN Government can go it alone without unity government, says Najib

PUTRAJAYA, June 22 -- The Barisan Nasional (BN) government has the capacity to continue administering the country even without the formation of the proposed unity government, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said Monday.

The prime minister said the BN government was strong and had the capability to implement its development programmes.

As such, the question of the BN government being weak so much so that there was a need for a unity government did not arise, he told reporters after a meeting of the heads of Malaysian foreign missions at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, here.

He said the government had merely responded positively to a proposal by PAS for a unity government.

Najib was asked to comment on a meeting today among PAS, DAP and Parti Keadilan Raykat (PKR) which decided to dismiss the proposal for the formation of a unity government.

Najib said the government had responded positively to the proposal because it assumed that it was for the good of the country.

"We are consistent in our stand. Anything for the good of the country must be worked on together, even if the proposal comes from an opposition party," he said.

The proposal for a unity government came from PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang but it was opposed by many senior leaders of the party itself as well as the party's partners in the opposition alliance, DAP and PKR.

Asked whether the Malays would stand to lose now that the opposition alliance had dismissed the unity government proposal, Najib said: "I don't think so. I hope they are very measured in whatever they do and we will not go overboard with whether we have the talks or we don't have the talks (on the unity government).

"What's important is that we manage our differences and that we always have the nation in our hearts and minds."

Asked whether the unity government talks would re-emerge in the future, Najib said anything was possible in politics.

-- BERNAMA

Hilary Clinton, once Barack Obama's fiercest opponent has become one of his most solid allies

Jun 18th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Illustration by KAL

ONE of Barack Obama’s riskiest decisions, on winning the presidential election, was to choose Hillary Clinton as his secretary of state. The Obama-Clinton duel was among the most vicious in Democratic Party history, and some of the sharpest clashes were over foreign policy.

The Obama camp accused Mrs Clinton of Bush-like support for invading Iraq and shaking up rogue states (at one point she even threatened to “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel). The Clinton camp retorted that Mr Obama was a soft-hearted neophyte who was too eager to talk to dangerous strongmen, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These ideological tensions were reinforced by personal animosities. Richard Holbrooke has had a running feud with Anthony Lake, one of Mr Obama’s closest foreign-policy advisers. Samantha Power, another Obama adviser, described Mrs Clinton as a “monster” and was fired for it.

Mischief-makers have been trying to discover tensions between the two former rivals ever since Mrs Clinton moved to Foggy Bottom in January. So far they have been frustrated, despite the fact that the issues that once divided them have been at the heart of foreign policy, and many of the same egos are still at work (Ms Power is now ensconced in the National Security Council and Mr Holbrooke is “special representative” for Afghanistan and Pakistan.)

Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton have hewed to the same line over the current uproar in Iran—expressing worries about the violence but avoiding raising the spectre of “American interference”. Mrs Clinton has followed Mr Obama’s lead in holding out a welcoming hand to assorted anti-American strongmen. “President Obama won the election. He beat me in a primary in which he put forth a different approach,” was her sharp response to a Republican congressman who reminded her of her former hawkishness when Mr Obama shook Hugo Chávez’s hand. Mrs Clinton now enjoys the highest popularity rating of any of Mr Obama’s cabinet; she also enjoys the admiration of some Republicans, such as Mark Kirk, a member of the congressional subcommittee that overseas the State Department, who calls her “the superstar of the cabinet”.

Mrs Clinton’s success has partly been a matter of good fortune. The State Department is delighted to see the arrival of an administration that does not regard Foggy Bottom as enemy-occupied territory. It also has better relations with the Pentagon than it has had for years. If Donald Rumsfeld went out of his way to antagonise State, Robert Gates, who replaced him in 2006, has bent over backwards to woo it, publicly agonising over the “creeping militarisation” of foreign policy and calling for a “dramatic increase” in the “civilian instruments” of national security, such as diplomacy and foreign aid.

But Mrs Clinton has also made the best of her opportunities. She has struck a balance between deploying her star power and deferring to the president. She is routinely greeted as a rock star wherever she goes, and has enjoyed mixing with ordinary people: holding a spirited discussion with the teenage audience of an Indonesian television show, “Awesome”, for example. But she has always known when to defer to Mr Obama or other cabinet secretaries, such as Tim Geithner.

Mrs Clinton has also brought a tough-minded professionalism to her job. She has inevitably encountered resistance, given the number of fingers in the foreign-policy pie—including those of a vice-president, Joe Biden, with a long-standing interest in foreign affairs. The State Department bureaucracy is critical of her habit of surrounding herself with loyalists such as Cheryl Mills, a former White House lawyer who was one of her most important aides during the final days of her presidential campaign. Human-rights activists are also furious about her reluctance to lecture foreign governments, particularly China, on that subject.

But she has won more battles than she has lost—notably with Mr Biden, over whether America should send 21,000 troops to Afghanistan. And America’s foreign-policy machinery is now working as well as it has in years. One of her shrewdest moves was to divide the job of deputy secretary into two, with James Steinberg focusing on policy and Jack Lew on management. Mr Steinberg is respected on both sides of the former Clinton-Obama divide. Mr Lew, a former White House budget director, helped Mrs Clinton win a 10% budget increase for the department.

A workhorse not a showhorse

Mrs Clinton has also seemed content to delegate the day-to-day management of some of the world’s most volatile regions to special envoys: the Afghanistan-Pakistan region to Mr Holbrooke; the Middle East peace process to George Mitchell; and the Gulf and south-west Asia to Dennis Ross. (That last appointment, though, has gone awry: Mr Ross is apparently being moved to the White House.) But in general Mrs Clinton has disentangled herself enough from the daily demands of these regions to focus on strategic questions that are too often given short shrift: overhauling the management of foreign aid, improving the United States’ relations with Latin America and managing the rise of Asia, which is arguably the most important strategic issue facing the country. Mrs Clinton’s new-found collegial style and managerial competence is a godsend for the Obama administration at a momentous time for American foreign policy—and a principal reason why the country has been spared from one of the “difficult transitions” that Mr Steinberg once wrote a book about. The only disappointment, from her point of view, is that she did not bring the same skills to fighting Mr Obama, a year ago, that she is now bringing to serving him. If she had, Mr Obama might have been the one learning how to play second fiddle.

Economist.com/blogs/lexington

Karpal gesa PAS nilai semula kedudukannya dalam pakatan pembangkang

Pengerusi Kebangsaan DAP Karpal Singh meminta PAS menilai semula kedudukannya dalam pakatan pembangkang berikutan hasrat parti itu untuk mengadakan perbincangan perpaduan dengan Umno.

Menyatakan kesabaran parti itu ada hadnya, Karpal berkata PAS tidak sepatutnya meneruskan agendanya itu yang akan menjejaskan lagi pakatan pembangkang.

Hasrat PAS untuk mengadakan perbincangan perpaduan dengan Umno merupakan penentangan serius terhadap keikhlasan yang diharapkan daripada PAS sebagai komponen pakatan pembangkang, katanya dalam kenyataan di Kuala Lumpur Rabu.

Bernama melaporkan Karpal berkata PAS sepatutnya sedar bahawa ia bukan parti dominan dalam pakatan pembangkang kerana ia hanya mempunyai 24 kerusi di Parlimen berbanding dengan 28 kerusi yang dipegang DAP dan 31 kerusi oleh Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).

Katanya PAS sepatutnya tidak bersikap keterlaluan dengan membuat kenyataan , terutamanya melalui presidennya Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang untuk mengadakan perbincangan perpaduan dengan Umno.

Karpal turut menafikan kenyataan Abdul Hadi bahawa DAP bersetuju dengan cadangan mengadakan perbincangan perpaduan dengan Umno seperti yang dinyatakan secara terbuka oleh Abdul Hadi.

"Hadi memilih untuk mengelirukan bukan sahaja anggota dan pemimpin PAS tetapi juga rakyat. Secara terbuka mengaku telah menipu rakyat tidak akan memberikan kelebihan kepada Hadi," katanya.

Mengenai kritikan PAS terhadap Sisters-In-Islam (SIS), Karpal berkata tindakan itu tidak akan menjadikan PAS lebih disayangi oleh mereka yang menyokongnya dalam pilihan raya umum Mac lepas dan begitu juga dengan desakan PAS supaya wartawan wanita yang membuat liputan Muktamar ke-55 parti itu baru-baru ini berpakaian "sopan".

Bagaimanapun, pendirian pemimpin PAS bahawa Malaysia akan dijadikan sebagai negara Islam sekiranya parti itu berkuasa, merupakan sesuatu yang bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang secara spesifik menetapkan Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara sekular dengan agama Islam sebagai agama rasmi, kata Karpal.-10/6/2009 Agendadaily

1Malaysia tidak ketepi hak Melayu

Oleh ZABRY MOHAMAD
zabrymohamad.madzlan@utusangroup.com.my

Najib Tun Razak bersalaman dengan Ibrahim Ali yang mengetuai delegasi Perkasa dalam pertemuan di Bangunan Perdana Putra, Putrajaya, semalam.

PUTRAJAYA 12 Jun - Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak memberi jaminan pelaksanaan konsep 1Malaysia tidak akan mengetepikan hak-hak orang Melayu dan bumiputera seperti termaktub dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan, malah terus diperkasakan.

Perkara itu dinyatakan oleh Perdana Menteri kepada delegasi Pertubuhan Pribumi Perkasa Malaysia (Perkasa) yang melakukan kunjungan ke pejabatnya di sini hari ini.

Presiden Perkasa, Datuk Ibrahim Ali berkata, walaupun bertanggungjawab kepada semua kaum, Najib tetap mahu agenda orang Melayu diberikan perhatian utama.

"Kita mengalu-alukan dan amat senang hati apabila Perdana Menteri menyebut konsep 1Malaysia tetap bertunjangkan kepada Perlembagaan Negara, ini asasnya.

"Sebagai Perdana Menteri yang menunaikan kewajipan kepada semua kaum rakyat Malaysia, agenda Melayu tetap dekat di hatinya (Najib)," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian kepada pemberita selepas mengadakan pertemuan kira-kira dua jam dengan Najib di sini hari ini.

Delegasi Perkasa terdiri daripada 20 orang pakar dalam pelbagai bidang seperti ekonomi, kewangan, agama, bahasa, undang-undang dan keselamatan negara.

Menurut Ibrahim, perbincangan tersebut juga menyentuh isu-isu berkaitan liberalisasi yang turut akan menjaga kepentingan orang Melayu dan bumiputera.

Antaranya, jelas beliau, Perdana Menteri mahu pengambilan bilangan pelajar Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) ditambah kepada 200,000 orang bagi melahirkan lebih ramai profesional Melayu.

Selain itu, tambahnya, Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Mara) diberi suntikan sebanyak RM550 juta untuk program-program pembangunan orang Melayu dan bumiputera.

Sehubungan itu, Ibrahim memberitahu, Perkasa akan terus memainkan peranan sebagai 'mata dan telinga' kepada orang Melayu dalam menjelaskan pelaksanaan konsep 1Malaysia dan liberalisasi kerana ramai yang masih keliru.

Katanya, Perkasa akan mengadakan sesi penerangan bergerak ke seluruh negara untuk memberi maklumat kepada rakyat di peringkat akar umbi mengenainya.

Ia dijadual bermula pada 21 Jun ini di Negeri Sembilan diikuti Wilayah Persekutuan, Johor, Perak, Selangor dan negeri-negeri lain termasuk Sabah serta Sarawak.

What's your stand now, Kit Siang asked

KUALA LUMPUR: MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat has challenged DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang to state his stand on the resolutions tabled by PAS at its muktamar last week.

Ong said the people would like to know where he stood on the matter.

“PAS has stated its stand, which is contrary to DAP’s stand. Now, the people wish to know whether you (Kit Siang) are agreeable to this. What say you, Kit Siang?”

Ong said this during a press conference at his service centre in Taman Muda, Cheras, yesterday.

At the muktamar, PAS had proposed a unity government between Umno and PAS. It also called for the 30% bumiputra quota to be maintained, opposed the liberalisation of the 27 service sub-sectors announced by the Government and wanted Sisters in Islam banned.

Ong said Lim had appealed to the Chinese community to support PAS in the previous general elections and said the party would take the Chinese community’s needs and wishes into consideration.

“You asked the Chinese community to throw their weight behind PAS. We hold you responsible. You cannot say that your words are meant for the election period only,” he said. The Star

Geopolitics is making a comeback in Asia

The notion that geography is power is making an unwelcome comeback in Asia

Illustration by M. Morgenstern

A CENTURY ago the ideas of an American naval officer, Alfred Thayer Mahan—pal of Teddy Roosevelt, inventor of the term “the Middle East”, advocate of American expansionism in Asia and father of the modern American navy—were much in vogue among military strategists and great-power leaders. Now they are back in fashion again, this time among Asia’s rising powers.

Mahan was a founding father of geopolitics, in particular the notion that geography—poring over maps—should inform foreign policy more than any other consideration. It was the wine-dark sea that interested him most. His book, “The Influence of Sea Power Upon History”, was self-fulfilling, helping sea power shape history, though not for the better. Mahan concluded that command of seaborne commerce was the key to winning wars, and that what was needed was an “overbearing power on the sea which drives the enemy’s flag from it”. Wilhelm, the German Kaiser, loved the book, once saying he was trying to learn it by heart. The naval arms race between Germany and Britain that followed was both catastrophic and avoidable.

The understanding of sea power has since evolved, yet Mahan is now hugely admired in Asia’s two most populous powers. Banyan was recently in Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue, run by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London think-tank. It seems Britain’s former naval dominance of Asia has been forgiven or forgotten (or perhaps is recalled with admiration), for this forum is where defence types now get together with old friends and future foes. And whenever Banyan prodded a military man from India or China, out leapt a Mahanite.

For China’s strategic planners, securing sea lanes against hostile powers has become perhaps the chief preoccupation. For India’s, it is the growth of China’s presence in its backyard, in and around the Indian Ocean. In both countries Mahan is pressed into service in one planning paper after the next. James Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara of the United States Naval War College have followed the uses and abuses of Mahan. He is often selectively quoted, suppressing his equal emphasis on peaceful commerce. There is also this dictum: “Whoever controls the Indian Ocean dominates Asia. This ocean is the key to the seven seas in the 21st century. The destiny of the world will be decided in these waters.” Both Chinese and Indian papers quote it. But it is a fabrication; Mahan never wrote it.

That Asia should be looking to the sea makes sense. Threats to the two biggest countries historically came from their Central Asian hinterlands. But in terms of the spread of commerce, culture, religion and empire, Asia’s is a largely maritime history, carried on the monsoon winds. Asia’s modern “miracle”—economies plugged into globalised networks of supply and demand—is essentially a littoral story too, even when it falters, as now. A remarkable sight in Singapore is possibly the largest fleet ever gathered: hundreds of supertankers and bulk carriers from around the world, lying idly at anchor.

Despite the global slump, Asian growth continues. More than four-fifths of crude oil bound for China crosses the Indian Ocean before passing through the narrow Malacca Strait. Vast ship-borne imports of iron ore, coal and bauxite make up other raw ingredients for Chinese growth. India imports four-fifths of its oil, mostly from the Persian Gulf, plus liquefied natural gas from Qatar and Indonesia. Writing in Foreign Affairs, Robert Kaplan, an American journalist, whose poring over maps also suggests Mahanite tendencies, describes the whole Indian Ocean seaboard as “a vast web of energy trade”. Global energy needs are expected roughly to double by 2030, with India and China accounting for nearly half of the new growth in demand. Maritime security concerns are inevitable and legitimate.

The danger comes when concerns are amplified or imagined, and hitched to Mahanite prescriptions. The chief threats to peace in Asian waters come from non-state or pariah-state actors: Somali pirates, North Korean nuclear smugglers, water-borne jihadists, drug- and people-traffickers. For Chinese strategists, however, the threats are still America and India. In Singapore Robert Gates, America’s defence secretary, met his Japanese and South Korean counterparts, to reassure them in the face of North Korea’s nuclear bluster. Yet a Chinese general disapproved of the meeting and bluntly told Banyan that America’s alliances in North-East Asia were intended to threaten China.

Too much latitude

Other strategists gaze at maps and conjure up evil shapes. For Japanese imperialists (also Mahan fans), the Korean peninsula was a dagger at Japan’s heart; for Chinese strategists it is a threatening “bridgehead”. As for the Indian subcontinent, it is, in this Chinese analysis, “akin to a massive triangle reaching into the heart of the Indian Ocean” or, like Japan and Taiwan, “a giant and never-sinking aircraft-carrier”. India, in turn, espouses its own “Monroe doctrine”, demanding that outsiders keep out of its backyard. So it decries China’s “string of pearls” (roads, pipelines and ports being built in friendly countries around the Indian Ocean) as a provocation. Rivalry is helping drive a build-up of naval arms: three new aircraft-carriers for India; new destroyers, submarines and hints of an aircraft-carrier programme for China.

Mercifully, it is not all preordained to end in a rerun of 1914. The task of economic development concentrates Chinese and Indian minds at home. Smaller Asian navies are expanding as a counterbalance to the big powers, and they have an interest in keeping hands off the choke-point of the Malacca Strait. And America remains the defining force in Asia, able for now to enforce the peace. But, even if history never repeats itself, the persistence of Mahan’s doctrines suggests the past likes to have a try.

Economist.com/blogs/banyan

Selamat datang Lee Kuan Yew, Selamat berjuang Samy Vellu!

Olih Ruhanie Ahmad

Lee Kuan Yew akan menjelajah Malaysia minggu depan. Beliau akan mengadap Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Perak dan Sultan Pahang. Beliau juga akan mengunjungi Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin. Seterusnya, beliau akan menemui Naib-Naib Presiden UMNO, Presiden MCA, Menteri Besar Selangor, Menteri Besar Perak, Menteri Besar Kelantan dan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang (The Malaysian Insider).

Semalam Samy Vellu mahu Awang Selamat dikenakan tindakan di bawah Akta Hasutan semata-mata kerana kolumnis itu menyiarkan semula kenyataan Tan Siew Sin mengenai fakta sejarah etnisiti di Malaysia (atikel Awang Selamat ini disiarkan dalam Mingguan Malaysia 31.5.2009).

Hari ini ada pemimpin pemuda MIC buat laporan polis terhadap Presiden Perkasa, Datuk Ibrahim Ali, semata-mata kerana ayat ini: Bila orang Melayu membela hak Melayu, mereka kata perkauman, namun apabila mereka membela hak mereka dan ada kalanya menyinggung perasaan orang Melayu dan raja-raja Melayu, mereka tidak menganggapnya sebagai perkauman (Ibrahim Ali, Presiden Perkasa, Utusan Malaysia: 4.6.2009).

Secara kebetulan, antara rumusan posting saya malam tadi adalah kenyataan ini: Bila orang Melayu dan Bumiputera bertindak untuk menyuarakan kebenaran, tindakan itu cepat-cepat dilabelkan oleh sesetengah bukan Melayu sebagai tindakan rasis dan anti-perpaduan. Tetapi, bila sesetengah bukan Melayu mengungkit-ungkit, mengasak dan cuba menginjak-injak kedudukan Melayu pada hari ini, tidak ada siapa pula yang berani melabelkan tindakan segolongan bukan Melayu itu sebagai cauvinis dan rasis. Jika beginilah keadaannya, bilakah akan wujud perpaduan nasional yang tulin di Malaysia? Jika beginilah keadaannya, sampai bilakah orang Melayu dan Bumiputera akan menjadi mangsa label yang double-standard semata-mata kerana sebagai peribumi, orang Melayu dituntut supaya sentiasa bersabar dan bersikap amat toleran terhadap gelagat sesetengah bukan Melayu yang seolah-olah mahu mencabar kesebaran orang Melayu dan Bumiputera (Ruhanie Ahmad, Ketua Penerangan Perkasa, kuda-kepang: 3.6.2009).

Seterusnya, untuk renungan Samy Vellu, anak buahnya yang membuat aduan polis mengenai Ibrahim Ali, Lim Guan Eng yang diberitakan menyekat wartawan Utusan Malaysia daripada menghadiri satu sidang akhbar anjuran PKR di Pulau Pinang, Lim Kit Siang yang diberitakan sebagai memfitnahkan MARA kononnya kehabisan dana untuk membiayai biasiswa pelajar Bumiputera, orang kuat Gerakan yang nak bawa balik Chin Peng, dan lain-lainnya yang pada hujung tahun 2008 mengungkit-ungkit hal ehwal orang Melayu, saya paparkan di sini imbasan berita daripada Berita Harian 25 Jun 1965 seperti berikut:

KUALA LUMPUR, 24 JUN 1965 – Menteri Kerjayara, Pos dan Telekom, Datuk V.T Sambanthan, hari ini telah bertanyakan Lee Kuan Yew, Perdana Menteri Singapura, di negeri mana di dalam dunia ini bangsa-bangsa yang mendatang diterima baik menjadi warganegaranya beramai-ramai.

Beliau menegaskan bahawa hanya negara ini sahaja di dalam dunia ini telah memberi segala kemudahan kepada semua bangsa yang mendatang di sini menjadi warganegaranya.

Datuk Sambanthan berkata demikian di dalam Dewan Rakyat tadi ketika dewan mendebatkan titah ucapan Seri Paduka Yang Di Pertuan Agong.

Di dalam ucapannya selama 45 minit, Datuk Sambanthan telah mengkecam hebat sikap Lee Kuan Yew yang memainkan peranan perkauman di sini untuk kepentingan diri sendiri.

Beliau menuduh Lee Kuan Yew cuba memainkan politik perkauman dengan mengatakan Kerajaan Melayu Pusat cuba menguasai Kerajaan Negeri.

Datuk Sambanthan telah bertanyakan Lee Kuan Yew di mana letaknya logik tuduhannya itu.

Katanya: “Jikalau sungguhlah dakwaan Lee Kuan Yew itu, memang bodohlah pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu di sini dalam tahun 1957 dahulu memberi segala kemudahan kepada bangsa-bangsa asing di sini menjadi warganegara di sini.

“Jika benar laungan-laungan Lee Kuan Yew itu bahawa Kerajaan Melayu Pusat hendak mengusai bangsa-bangsa lain, mengapa mereka membenarkan bangsa-bangsa asing itu dengan senang saja menjadi warganegara di sini”.

“Ini amat bodoh sekali kerana adanya lebih ramai bangsa-bangsa asing (khususnya Cina dan India) menjadi rakyat di sini, tentu sukar bagi orang-orang Melayu di sini hendak menguasai bangsa-bangsa lain itu.

“Jika benar mereka hendak menguasai bangsa-bangsa asing di sini, mereka denga mudah sahaja berbuat demikian dalam tahun 1957 dahulu dengan tidak memberi kemudahan untuk bangsa-bangsa asing menjadi warganegara.

Beliau menerangkan bahawa sungguhpun orang-orang Melayu telah bermurah hati menerima baik bangsa-bangsa asing, tetapi sekarang ini mereka itulah (Melayu) golongan bangsa yang termiskin sekali.

Datuk Sambanthan bertanya: “Siapa yang memiliki bandar-bandar dan gudang-gudang serta ladang-ladang di sini. Adakah gudang-gudang dan ladang-ladang ini dimiliki oleh orang-orang Melayu?” (Berita Harian: 25.6. 19650).

Hansard yang menjadi asas kepada kenyataan Sambanthan di atas pastinya masih tersimpan di pusat data Parlimen Malaysia. Kenyataan tersebut amat relevan kepada Samy Vellu, DAP dan kita semua, khususnya orang Melayu yang asyik dituduh sebagai perkauman, walaupun dalam menyatakan kebenaran mengenai sejarah etnisiti di tanah air ini. Fikir-fikikanlah!