Malaysiakini tells us that none other than - to borrow a sweetie’s WMD (Weapon of Marvellous Dismissal), gasp, gawd, omigosh - Raja Bodek called on the government to ‘seriously consider’ the setting up of a royal commission to investigate the volcanic matter erupted by the Lingam videotape.
With that, Gerakan claims pole position among BN component parties to come out strongly on the videoclip than just having a mere independent investigation panel, which has limited powers under its very narrow terms of reference.
Hmmm, very unusual yet ... yet, yes yet not so strange if we consider Raja’s action against the backdrop of the approaching general elections. Has this been a Gerakan pre-emptive strike against its BN rival, the MCA, rather than a genuine call for a more comprehensive and empowered investigation?
Ok, let’s leave that aside and continue with the second part of The necessary demonization of Lee Lam Thye.
This is kaytee’s defence of Lee Lam Thye rather than a defence of the independent investigation panel, though I must point out that by contrast to a particular political party, the Bar Council, which organised the protest march to Putrajaya, has agreed to give the 3-member panel a chance.
Bar vice president K Ragunath: “We have agreed to let the panel carry out its inquiry. We’ve agreed to cooperate with them when needed. We shall attend the inquiry or hold a watching brief, we’ve got a team set up.”
The Bar Council has taken the stand of ‘let’s see what the panel will do’, yet why is one particular party and its supporters trying to rubbish the panel. Why indeed is the demonization of Lee necessary?
Let me just go through some probable 'sins' of Lee so that I can arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Well, perhaps Lee, an opposition politician, on retirement from politics, has the bloody nerve to participate in government activities, for example,becoming Chairperson of the NS (mind you, ‘government’ or ‘national’ activity and not BN).
Unlike in the West, there is no room for civility outside (or stand down from) politics, where politicians from both sides of the House could sit down and have a drink or two and laugh about matters ‘off the record’ as colleagues rather than as political adversaries - not even for retired politician who has not taken up politics but wants or is willing to do some public service work.
Such is the Hang Tuah-ish mentality that we in Malaysia have inherited, that unless an opposition politician remains in perpetual opposition, he is a ‘traitor’, to be killed like Jebat (though 'traitorous' to whom, I am still wondering?)
Damn it, doesn’t Lee realise that once in opposition politics or in an NGO activist group like, say, ABIM, one must never ever betray one’s original organisation? One should stay forever in the Opposition or an NGO like ABIM and never hop around to the despised BN.
And then Lee compounds his ‘sin’ by becoming ‘successful’. The damn nerve, how dare he! As a retired opposition politician, he should remain poor like a Spartan warrior, Shaolin monk or an ascetic sadhu living in a Himalayan cave, and leave wealth making to us the general high-opinated know-all public who of course expect him to be forever against the ruling party.
OK, apart from us public, perhaps only ‘some people’ not in government are allowed to be successful, so successful that they can live in palatial mansion and be chaffeured around in powerful expensive imported cars, but certainly Lee Lam Thye mustn't be allowed, oh no, we aren't going to accept any of Lee's de facto monkeying around in the business world, no, not once we have decided for him a life of (opposition) political asceticism.
And if that former DAP bastard can justify his acquired wealth, why, he will be rubbished nonetheless, by unsubstantiated poo flinging all around, like, for example, he acquired 10 million from somewhere, and f-the facts or proof, who cares anyway, besides, unsubstantiated facts are the best because they spread even quicker.
Then of course how dare he heads a company that does business with – gasp, gawd, omigosh – the government (mind you, the 'government' and not the BN, but wtf, who cares).
Oh now, btw who was it who complained that those UMNO people can't distinguish between the government and the party? Maybe ex-UMNO-istas who aren't sharing the trough anymore?
Indeed how dare Lee sits on the independent panel? He should have refused, yes, refused.
Yes, yes, he didn’t offer his service and was asked – but he could have refused, couldn’t he?
Eh ... what? Who, who was not asked but offer his service?
WHAT??? WTF you’re talking about?
What’s this nonsense about someone, by contrast to Lee, wasn’t asked but offered his service to the AAB government?
WHAT? Who in April last year offered unsolicited assistance to the government on issues involving bilateral ties [with Singapore], saying he could draw from his experience in the government, and who declared:
“I would not discount any possible meeting with Abdullah if he were to ask my views on the issues ... like the negotiations with Singapore on the bridge and even information on the negotiations with Indonesia on border issues.”
“I will not be serving the government. But I am a Malaysian and very loyal to the country and will do my best to serve.”
So, what we have is ... one didn't offer his service but was asked to, while another was not asked but offered anyway ... OK, you work out the significance, you wondrous whining, whinging. wailing, whimpering warriors.
Hahaha, now, who was it who said of Lee Lam Thye that “He is a political opportunist. If he is a person of high principles, he should quit the panel. He is a disappointment to his past supporters.”
Principle? Does this only apply to Lee Lam Thye but not to He who walks on water?
OK then, next, who was it who said Lee Lam Thye is a brown noser?
Was he the one who said on Australian TV of AAB being a - gasp, gawd, omigosh - 'compassionate’ person. And who was it who praised AAB for abandoning that bridge to Singapore while of course condemning Dr Mahathir, and who expressed full support for AAB’s decision to abandon the project as a commendable decision – yes, 'twas so commendable that abandoning the project cost more than the building of the bridge. Indeed who praised AAB as follows:
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ... after weeks of massive campaigns against Singapore ... (for Abdullah) to suddenly say that the decision (to build the bridge) was faulty and that we have to scrap the project ... it’s commendable.”
“It takes a lot of courage and wisdom ..... it’s commendable.” Ain't that just pukish!
Jeez, could it be that brown noser, Lee Lam Thye? Or, no, no, surely it can't be ... He who walks on water?
Er ... before I end this post with a 'To be continued ...', as I said before, don't you dare practise double standards now, don't you bloody hypocrites f-dare!
To be continued ... and it won't be pretty again.
Im Anonymous who said LLT a > $10 million man yesterday.
ReplyDeleteYou wanted me to show proof, if i dare to review myself do you think i'll hide under anonymous?
Anyway, i can indicate something to you if you like to hear; this LLT stayed in Taman Maluri semi-d when i first know him (this were the golden aged year of LLT), it's also commonly know at that time that he had very good relationship with the then Finance Ministry's and some local authorities' kaki, so he can do 'kau dim' for you if you need any thing from the Government! This was where he started to accumulate his first million.
The 200 arch land opposition man is not LLT (this very old man is still active in local politic) , this is to show dear stupid Malaysian that we are in fact creating 'hantu' under our very own political system for both the government of the day and the opposition.
KT,
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to mention LLT is a director in a high-profile public-listed company whose principal shareholder is UMNO. In fact, he is the only Chinabeng board director in the whole setup.
I stand by my strong suspicion that there is currently a quid-pro-quo relationship between LLT and the UMNO leadership.
That's still a private matter between LLT and UMNO, I guess.
But don't try to pretend LLT is qualified to be considered "independent" in a matter where the UMNO leadership has a strong incentive to meddle.
a suspicion is as damaging as cowboy-style murderous shooting in downtown Baghdad by American Blackwater mercenaries and as valuable as a used condom in establishing the truth - it's based on 99.99% prejudice and 0.01% circumstantial evidence
ReplyDeletethere's no law against someone being a director in any company provided he/she doesn't have any criminal record - I haven't establish who owns the company but even if UMNO is the majority owner how do we know he wasn't appointed a director (maybe even by the minority shareholder) because of his ability, or because the majority shareowner wants a Chinaman there for window dressing, and Lee is a likable Chinaman to Malays, not just UMNO.
If we go by your suspicion of a 1990 deal (and malicious rumours in Malaysia seem to gain olfactory substance over time), I need to query what need is there anymore for any quid pro quo 17 years thereafter? There's no reasonable plausibility in this assertion - you're grasping at straws.
Prejudice is such that makes one desperate to find any, even flimsy grounds to support one's prejudiced position. But would these random potshots at Lee (undoubtedly picked up from the Malaysian world famous surat/mulut layang a la '50 reasons why AI shouldn't be PM') be fair to the victim?
Let's work on facts, shall we?
forgot to add, compare Lee with He who walks on water, and be brave and be honest with yourself
ReplyDeleteforgive me for my ignorance, and its been awhile since i kept tab on local politics, but who is this "He who walks on water"??
ReplyDeleteKTemoc
ReplyDeleteI feel that you are really bending backwards (even double-bent), resorting what I feel to be obfuscation at times to justify LLT’s actions. The more you do so the more adverse comments on LLT will appear to damage his reputation further. You are not doing LLT any favours – indeed, you are doing him a great disfavour – by going out on a limb to defend the indefensible.
Since you intend to take this matter further and, in your own words, “it won't be pretty again” I will take engage in debate on LLT again when “it won't be pretty again”.
But for now I would appreciate a reply to my earlier query re: Tan Chee Khoon when I reproduce below:
You wrote: when lim Chong eu took the gerakan into the bn after may 13, dr tan left gerakan to form perkemas - he was a man of principle.
It is documented fact that Gerakan threw in its lot with UMNO almost immediately after May 13. Pekemas was formed in 1972 and was TCK not still a Gerakan member before finally breaking ranks with Gerakan? And what were the real reasons for him breaking ranks with Gerakan, and for Pekemas’ dismal showing at the 1974 GE, which led to the demise of the party?
Many of us were born after 1969 and would not be too knowledgeable about the politics of the time. I would be grateful if you could offer us some enlightenment so we can fill in the gaps in our knowledge.
It also is a well-known fact that Tan support the NEP, which would have endeared him to UMNO and thus given the leeway to bitch a bit about government policies, earning him the accolade of “Mr. Opposition”.
May I also add that I have enjoyed this debate with you, and look forward to more of the same. That’s because you are unlike some other bloggers who, having achieved some degree of popularity and recognition from the public, really seem to think they can walk on water and therefore resort to hurling insults against commenters who hold different views.
teeal
anon, I feel it's my 'defend underdog' duties to speak on behalf of LLT; if you had read my blogging colleague Dr Darren Hsu's comments in an earlier post, you would have appreciated the man Lee was and still is. Many opposition supporters of today who have been too lazy to research on his achievements (I am lucky in a way as my uncles are staunch admirers of LLT and provided me with personal renditions as well as directing/insisting on me to do some research) and rely purely on aroused emotions, aroused by snake oil salesman/charlatan. They're just like neocon George Bush and his "either you are with us or AGAINST us". I have no time nor any appreciation for such robotic thinking; I prefer to evaluate such case (and not necessary by personality) on its own merit before I pass my blogger's judgement (that's the thrill of being an independent blogger, because I don't have to take crap from anyone or be like a lemming, a fanatical acolyte of a flamboyant leader and member of the 'sokong' brigade whether of the BN's or Opp's).
ReplyDeleteYou have been incorrect to suggest that Gerakan went straight into the BN immediately after May 13 1969. Like you that was history before my time but I read that the NOC (basically a dictatorship) ruled under Emergency provisions for a couple of years before Tun Razak proposed the BN in 1972.
According to Gordon Means who published in 1991 the book "Malaysian Politics: The Second Generation" he wrote that when Lim Chong Eu took Gerakan into the BN in 1972, Tan, who had strongly opposed this move because of the race-based parties in BN, left Gerakan.
Look, this was a man who was from the socilaist Labour Party which frowned on racism, so he stood by his ideology and principle and left Gerakan which incidentally he was co-founder. He then founded Pekemas (Parti Keadilan Masyarakat Malaysia, or Social Justice Party of Malaysia), a non-communal party.
You are right in saying Tan supporteed the NEP, but you should qualify that by saying the NEP with its original noble aims, not the current version of Ali Baba and the 400,000 thieves, because he felt tougher affirmative action was required to address Malay poverty (my uncle said Tan's intention could be verified in an Aliran magazine). Tan was a good man, and he wanted to see the poorer Malays (in 1970's) have a better life. There's nothing wrong with supporting the original NEP if it helps the really poorer Malays in the desa. Today, we could expand on the policy to include the Aborigines and Indians, as a need based rather than race based affirmative action.
I believe Pekermas lost in 1974 because (1) people wasn't ready for his moderate non-racist politics (oh no, not after May 13), (2) the BN embracing the Gerakan, PPP, even PAS etc was very powerful, and attracted virtually ALL Malay voters especially after May 13, and (3) the DAP was far more attractive to the non-Malays. Tan was also suffering form ill heath and he was the only perosnality of some note in Pekermas. Pity.
Incidentally one of his aims in forming Pekermas was to deny the BN of its 2/3 majority, which has in recent times been adopted by Lim KS as a more realistic opposition policy.
I remember Tan Chee Khoon once wrote a column in the Star (pre-Ops Lallang) called "Without Fear or Favour".
ReplyDeleteNow, that is one Man who truly acted without fear or favour.
KTemoc
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply on the subject of Tan Chee Khoon.
True, BN was formed only in 1972 and one could argue that that was when Gerakan fell into political alignment with UMNO..
But if my memory serves me well Dr, Kua Soo Kiang in his book “May13” wrote that
it was because of Gerakan’s moral support for UMNO after immediately May 13 that lent a large measure of stabilisation in the areas (Penang, Perak) where Gerakan drew much of its voter support. Ditto for the PPP which its present-day leader Kavveas claims that up to this day has not been given recognition and gratitude in the form of more national and state seats.
teeal
From my little failed memory, it was the way LLT tried to tarnish DAP's image at the time when he was rumoured to be in negotion with "the government" then, that his reputation was tarnished. May be those of you who have a better memory could help to confirm this.
ReplyDelete