Felda's London hotel - its what, why, when, how, where, who?

TMI - Why is it always about race, asks Lim Guan Eng

This one is a bit dated (published 3 days ago) but I feel it merits a post.

When Lim Guan Eng questioned Felda on 2 issues, namely:

(i) why the federal government agency, one set up to organize small holder farms growing cash crops, and recently to operate the world's largest plantation of oil palms, went into the hotel business especially when it had zero experience in running a hotel in a foreign country, and

(ii) paid more than market price for a apartment complex cum hotel in London when it could purchase it by RM100 million less than the humongous RM500 million it forked out, 

... he (as expected) didn't receive any answer but instead accusations that he was looking down on the ability of the Malays to manage international hotels, and thinking that only the Chinese could do it.

The person who accused him for his so-called anti-Malay questions was former information minister Zainuddin Maidin, now with the impressive title of Tan Sri, not unlike Rahim Tamby Chik and Harussani Zakaria, the mufti who in 2006 spread the seditious evil fabrications via sms that there was a mass conversion of Muslims to Christians at a church in Perak, and then when the truth emerged, ball-lessly put the whole blame on a woman, Raja Sherina.

Anyway, Lim GE lamented that Zainuddin had evaded the issue (Lim's questions) by playing the race card when the issue of Felda's accountability was never about race but the business sense of the agency's bizarre venture into the hotel business, on top of which it paid an excruciatingly excessive exorbitant sum for an an overseas hotel-apartment, adding quite correctly:

"The problem with Umno is when they cannot give an explanation, they go back to racism. They can't answer the two important questions I had asked."

"Why pay RM100 million more (for the hotel)? Is someone making money? Prove to us you have the expertise. Don't turn this into a race issue."

Lim has been right in his riposte to Zainuddin Maidin for UMNO's SOP when it couldn't answer or account for its gross naughtiness would be to make a clarion call to rally the faithful under its banner.

Yes, whenever UMNO was under siege for its governmental (usually financial or contractual) indiscretions, it would resort to raja, agama dan bangsa as the battle cry to the Malays.

On the surface it was UMNO’s polemical postulating that no other factor could be more important than the protection of the Malay’s royalty, religion and race, which, according to UMNO, could of course only be assured by UMNO, and thus to f**ks with those allegedly 'anti-Malay royalty, anti-Islam and anti-Malay' questionings.

But the truth underlying its cheap battle song and dance sandiwara has been more about hiding, distracting from, glossing over or excusing away its governmental lack of accountability, poor governance, indiscretion and plain corruption, ...

... proving precisely Samuel Johnson’s warning in 1774, that the term ‘patriotism’ would be falsely used (exploited) by a scoundrel as his last refuge because by then he has no other place to hide himself from legitimate questioning.

As mentioned, when confronted with questions they want to avoid answering, UMNO people like Zainuddin Maidon and their affiliates find it convenient to resort to the mentioned tripodal weapon. In a way, it's sad that because of this unscrupulous exploitation for the attention of the Malay Heartland, the sultans of 9 states in Peninsula Malaysia have come to be perceived by many (though not all) as a Malay institute rather than Malaysian one.

The greatest and most sour irony is that the worst offender against the three Malay 'scared cows'* have been UMNO.

* no insult against Islam or the Muslim Malays is implicit in the use of this most appropriate English idiom

Yes, if we carefully examine events and facts, the revelation would be that UMNO leaders, past and present, have collectively been the exclusive abuser of royalty, religion and race.

Let’s examine the first, raja. Karpal Singh has been accused of committing lèse majesté against the Perak Sultan but all the DAP chairperson did was to lodge a legal suit based on a constitutional disagreement with the Sultan's action, a legitimate pursuit ironically made possible by Dr Mahathir when he was PM.

If one really wants to know what lèse majesté would be, what about this one, when on 10 December 1992, Dr Affifuddin Omar, an UMNO man from Padang Terap, no doubt given the imprimatur by his party leaders, asked in Parliament:

"How can we continue to uphold rulers who are known to be robbers, adulterers, drunkards and kaki pukul (thugs)?" [...]

"They (the rulers) must be made to realize that they do not own this country. They are not Superman but placed on their thrones by the people. The real power did not lie with them, but with us - the representatives of the people."

Which ‘non’ could have said that and got away? None!

Only UMNO and UMNO alone had gotten away with its abuse of the raja whom they hypocritically claim today to defend.

Francis Bacon once said: “The zeal which begins with hypocrisy must conclude in treachery; at first it deceives, at last it betrays”, but obviously UMNO has done it the other way around, by betraying first before speaking hypocritically.

Then we come to agama. Let’s not worry too much about corruption and un-Islamic practices, such as flying to Mecca for the Haj on 'free' airline ticket plus plus, over the last three decades. During a number of the most holy month of Ramadan, we witnessed an astonishing series of lies emanating from some UMNO-linked Malay institutes.

Recall, there was also a sinister attempt by a Muslim leader allied to UMNO to sell us the lie about a so-called ‘new’ constitution that will disadvantage the Malay community, a man already notorious for his lying ways.

And some time ago we read of wild boar heads being cast into a mosque to ferment religious conflict. They had to be wild boars because only non-Muslims could openly purchase a (domestic) pig’s head.

And finally on bangsa we have Dr Mahathir, a man who served as PM for more than two decades with one singular aim, to build self esteem and confidence in the Malays to be competent and competitive.

We could liken his noble obsession as that not unlike the burden of Sinbad when he had the Old Man of the Sea sitting on his shoulders.

Yet in one fell swoop Dr Mahathir inexplicably destroyed his life’s efforts, when he declared that the ‘merito-crats’, the ‘nons’, have been racists.

Did he realize that his in-your-face message to the ‘nons’ carried along with it another far more painful and devastating message?

Alas, vis-a-vis his arguments that 'merito-crats' were 'non's, he was essentially saying to the Malays, that they weren't up to meritocracy.

Thus it could be argued that he was implying the Malays are inferior and could not compete against non-Malays on a level playing field?

Perhaps he implicitly suggested the Malays ignore the examples of Malays like Razak, Dr Ismail, Hussein Onn, Ghazali Shafie and a host of other Malay giants. I wonder whether he excluded himself.

So, the man who would be the Moses of the Malays, leading them from the wilderness into a new Promised Boleh Land, he who wanted to remove the psychological ‘crutches’ from them, suddenly changed his mind, no doubt implying to them to hang on to those props.

I am reminded of Marcus Antonius words about Brutus:

For Brutus, as you know, was Caesar's angel.
Judge, O you gods, how dearly Caesar lov'd him!
This was the most unkindest cut of all;
For when the noble Caesar saw him stab,
Ingratitude, more strong than traitors' arms,
Quite vanquish'd him: then burst his mighty heart.

Raja, agama dan bangsa? Yes, the raja had been resoundingly vilified, the tenets of agama totally and disrespectfully ignored, and the hearts of bangsa torn apart with the most unkindest cut of all - all by UMNO!

Continuing on the Felda issue, Zainuddin also attacked Lim for saying that Felda should only focus on agriculture-related businesses.

Throughout the more recent history of business and industry, we have read of many failures due to those concerns deviating from their core business.

The story of Pertamina and its boss Ibnu Sutowo in expanding away from its core business was a classic case.

I have also heard of a weird story about (though I'm not sure whether it's) Felda or another similar agricultural-based federal government agency. The story went like this:

• Palm oil trees needed fertilizing
• Smart alec said best fertilizer was goat's poo
• So lots of goats bought &
• Left in plantations to poo
• After a while the agency thought its core business was goats, and not palm oil, wakakaka. 
• The whole scheme went kaput
• Not sure whether poo-ing was insufficient or goats disappeared or what
• wakakaka

Anyway regarding Felda's purchase of the London hotel, in the end I too would like to know about that extra RM100 million overpaid for the London hotel, its what, why, when, how, where and most of all the who.

I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); Theirs names are What and Why and When And How And Where and Who - Rudyard Kipling.