Nearly three weeks ago I blogged on No bumiputra in Sarawak.
In that posting I highlighted that just prior to the UMNO general assembly, AAB allocated an additional 3 million ringgit per constituency for rural development. He stated the original allocation had already ran dry.
He wanted to spent an additional RM600 million in Peninsula and Sabah to top up the RM1.5 billion for rural development. However he failed to explained why the supplementary RM600 millions are just for Peninsula and Sabah, but significantly NOT Sarawak.
We all know that the RM600 million was garm-garm (exactly to a 'T') for 191 parliamentary constituencies held by UMNO MPs. There is no UMNO held seat in Sarawak.
Apart from that deliberate omission being discriminatory, has it been also a warning to Sarawakians to elect an UMNO bloke or two in the next election? What has the Sarawak CM said to the PM’s discriminatory handouts thus far?
Parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang just said what I blogged, that omitting Sarawak from the additional RM600 million has been a blatant discrimination.
Lim said the extra funds were also in contempt of both the cabinet and the Parliament, which should have been the first and final body respectively to approve the disbursement of the funds, but were left oblivious of the matter.
A case of AAB's siapa raja or sheer survival tactic (probably the latter) because a 'someone' was supposed to have turned up but didn’t due to a change of HEART! The tactic to upstaged that 'someone' went ahead nonetheless.
Lim said succinctly: “The instant allocation of RM3 million for minor contract works at the disposal of each UMNO division in the country ... in order to ‘buy’ UMNO delegate support at the UMNO general assembly is nothing less than political corruption of the worst kind.”
Lim said it was ‘sad and tragic’ that Abdullah, who had won a landslide victory in the 2004 general election on a pledge to root out corruption, would himself involved in such an act.
“This demonstrates that he has lost the ability to differentiate between public funds and political party purposes and between right and wrong.”
Prior to the 2004 general election, the MCA had touted AAB as Bao Gong. To fully appreciate the significance of comparing the Chinese magistrate to AAB, one has to be brought up as a Chinese.
Bao Gong (real name was Bao Zheng) was born in April 999 AD near Hefei City. He became a senior official of the Northern Song Dynasty. He was highly respected for his strictness in upholding justice and opposing corruption no matter how powerful the miscreant was.
Chinese view Bao's life as representing the highest standards of morality and ethics. His ideas were the very model of equality and rule of law.
The enormity of that MCA’s lie is unmitigated and has now become seriously damaging to the credibility of the MCA for ever suggesting that.
It has been an insult to Bao Gong himself.