Dr Mahathir asked the PM 4 questions - Proton's sale of MV Agusta; the exit of the former Proton chief executive officer; approved permits for cars; and scrapping of the bridge project - for which he is still awaiting AAB's answers.
Now, it would appear as if someone has decided to counter-attack by asking Dr Mahathir's 22 questions, which I believe have been intended to put him on the back foot, or more likely, to divert Malaysian minds to them rather than those asked of AAB (once the article spreads as it would). Those questions have been:
1) On clean government
2) Press freedom
3) Proton
4) Heavy industries
5) Population
6) Immigration
7) On your first deputy
8) On the 1st UMNO split
9) On Operation Lalang
10) Judiciary
11) Education
12) Former Finance Minister Daim Zainuddin
13) Cronyism and patronage
14) Privatisation
15) Ghafar Baba
16) Anwar Ibrahim
17) KL Putrayaja
18) International Airport
19) Govt-linked companies
20) Islamisation
21) Approved Permits (AP)
22) Money politics
While some of those questions are pertinent, others have been nothing more than to kacau (to disturb, but more in context, to add to the poo that he hopes would stick to Dr Mahathir).
For example, he asked why Mahathir had developed KL International when Subang was available. If we look across the causeway or up north, we see very modern airports at Changi and Bangkok. Then there's the Hong Kong's new ultra-modern airport. So what's his beef?
He asked Dr Mahathir something that I thought was bloody stupid, why the ole man was chosen as Hussein’s deputy in 1976, when Ghafar Baba had the highest number of votes among Umno vice-presidents. Only Hussein Oon can answer this, so again, what's his beef?
But this type of questions confirms my belief that it's nothing more than to kacau, stir sh*t up, muddy the water, probably to distract from the fact that AAB has not replied to Dr Mahathir's query on the sand & airspace factors that brought about the cancellation of the bridge project.
Guess who asked those questions?
Singapore. Yes, they were asked by the pro-government Singapore Straits Times which devoted nothing less than one full-page to the questions.
It was penned by The Edge group executive editor P Gunasegaram. The article first appeared in the weekly financial newspaper on June 20. It has also been published by Singapore's top Chinese daily Zao Bao, which belongs to the Straits Times group.
Hmmm, why would a Singapore newspaper with close links to its government be asking such questions that seem designed to shift the attention away from AAB and on to the ole man.
Maybe I should seek some answers while I am beneath the buah cherry tree.
For those who don't know why Singapore is pro-AAB on this issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is not in Singapore interest to have an unstable Malaysian government and in the past an unstable UMNO always lead to it being used as a bogeyman or a whipping boy. Hence its not surprising its supportting AAB in this fight.
What is surprising is the fact that its given such prominence possibly reflecting the Singapore government concern that this fight is a pretty bad one. Singapore gov want this thing over with as soon as possible and hence have chosen to attack Dr. M to try and end this.
However, I wonder if this could backfire because Dr. M could use this as an ammunition to fan the KJ-Singapore conspiracy theory?