Badawi is only 20% to blame

One of the happiest persons in Malaysia today must be Mahathir Mohammed. He could not wait to call a press conference to condemn his successor Abdullah Badawi for the dismal performance of the Barisan Nasional at last Saturday’s general elections. Looking like a delighted kid who has just received his favourite toy, he gleefully pointed out that since Badawi had been given 100% credit for BN’s outstanding performance at the last election in 2004, he should now shoulder 100% of the blame.

I would disagree with that assessment. I think Badawi should only receive 20% of the credit in 2004 and 20% of the blame this time. In both occasions, 80% of the creditor/blame goes to Mahathir. Why do I say that?

Ask yourself. What is the main cause of BN’s poor performance? The newspapers have gone into great detail on that. In a nutshell, the people are fed up with the BN’s mismanagement and wanted change. And this desire for change was already very strong in 2004. Hence they were hopeful that Badawi, being quite different in character and temperament from Dr M would bring about that change. Unfortunately they were disappointed. And so now, they are willing to give the opposition a try.

Let’s take a closer look at just a couple of these causes of discontent among Malaysians.

1) Corruption, nepotism and money politics. Did these come about only during the past four years under Badawi’s leadership? Obviously not. They flourished during the Mahathir era. Remember that famous Lingam video? Who was PM at that time? Badawi’s failure was only his inability to deliver on his promises to solve these deep-rooted problems. So I ask you - can Badawi take 100% of the ‘credit’?

2) Marginalization of the Chinese and Indians arising from the NEP (New Economic Policies) which led to exodus of large numbers of talented Chinese and Indians. Again did this arise during Badawi’s term?

3) Crime and social problems. Remember the time when Lee Kuan Yew caused an uproar in the Malaysian papers when he commented that Johor Bahru was crime-infested? Was that during Badawi’s or Mahathir’s rule?

4) Finally, there is the so-called Anwar factor. This one is fact is 100% caused by Mahathir’s petty feud with his apparent successor. Badawi was simply the innocent bystander. His only fault is that he was not as ruthless as his predecessor in finishing off Anwar by dishonest means.

The above are just a few of the many problems that caused the ‘defeat’ of BN. All these problems were deeply entrenched when Badawi took over the reigns from Mahathir. As I said before, here:

冰冻三尺 非一日之寒; or A three –feet layer of ice did not result from a single day of chill.

Conclusion: Mahathir should not be so quick to point fingers at his successor. You know what they say about pointing fingers. One finger is pointed at Badawi, 4 are pointed at himself. That’s why I say Badawi is only 20% to blame.

As an aside, I think the opposition should thank Mahathir for their victories. Just imagine. If Dr M hadn’t so ruthlessly dealt with his previous deputy, would today’s results be possible. If Anwar had succeeded Dr M, he certainly would have continued the BN’s policies; only he wouldn’t be as easy to handle as Badawi. As it turns out, Anwar is now forced to work with the opposition parties and court the Chinese and Indian voters, and win over some disgruntled Malays.

A final word caution to my Chinese and Indian friends – watch Anwar carefully. There is a Cantonese saying; kor kew chou pan. After crossing the bridge, remove the plank.

Oops we did it again!

The last time they arrested a Christian couple from America for ‘close proximity’.

This time they want to keep the body of a Chinese who had already converted to Christianity. Apparently she had consulted a Malay Muslim faith healer who tried to convert her to Islam.

I wonder if they are big fans of Britney Spears.

UMNO Leaders not sensitive

Many UMNO leaders were fond of accusing people of other races and religions of being ‘insensitive’. This was especially so during the Mahathir era when Singapore leaders and newspapers were frequently taken to task for the supposedly 'insensitive' comments they made or printed.

But judging from some of the news coming from up north, I would say that the UMNO leaders themselves are guilty of being insensitive. Let’s take the latest controversy on the use of the word ‘Allah’ for God in the Malay Bible. (By the way, I wonder if Malaysian Muslims know that the Bible has been around for a much longer time than the Quran)

Mr Abdullah Zin, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, and de facto minister for Islamic affairs, told reporters on Thursday that the Cabinet is of the view that "Allah" refers to the Muslim God and can only be used by Muslims, who comprise about 60 percent of Malaysia's population. He said:

"The use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country,"

I think the minister could have been more sensitive and said this instead:

"Non-Muslims should not use the word 'Allah' because it may create confusion among non-Malays everywhere."

Most non-Malays like me tend to associate the word Allah with Islam.

Our Indian friends up north should read this

The street protests by Indians in Malaysia have been very much in the news lately. A rally organized by the Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) recently, attracted thousands of Indians to the streets of Kuala Lumpur. They wanted to submit a petition with 100,000 signatures to Queen Elizabeth II to appoint a Queen’s Counsel to represent the Indian community in a class action suit against the British government for bringing Indians as labourers to the then Malaya and thereafter exploiting them.

If I were speaking on behalf of the British, I would ask the protesters to take a look at the front page of the 30 November 2007 edition of Singapore’s TODAY newspaper.


In it, you will see the faces of two prominent Indian Singaporeans. Tharman Shanmugaratnam is the present Minister for Education. He will be given another important portfolio today, that of the Finance ministry. The other picture is that of Vivian Balakrishnan, another high-flying Indian who at the age of 44 became Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports as well as Second Minister for Trade and Industry in 2005. In fact, we have another Indian holding an even higher position. He is deputy prime minister Assoc. Prof. Jayakumar.

The question that I will ask our Malaysian friends is this: Weren’t the forefathers of Mr Tharman and Dr Vivian and thousands of Singaporean Indians similarly brought in to the then Malaya as labourers by the British? How come no Singaporean Indian is sueing the British government?

The answer is obvious isn’t it? If you really want to sue someone, you should sue your own politicians; especially the half-Indian who ruled Malaysia for 22 years.

Our Bumiputra friends up north should read this

Our Bumiputra friends in Malaysia - including that pseudo-Bumiputra who wrote The Malay Dilemma - should read this front page article which appeared in Singapore’s Straits Times last Friday (23 November 2007).

• She scored a staggering 294 points in her PSLE.



• She broke the record for the highest score ever in Singapore.



• The closest rival was a good 6 points behind her.



• She came from a humble background; her mother was a housewife, and father, an aircraft technician.



• She never had a day of tuition in her life.



• Her name is Natasha Nabila Muhamad Nasir.



• She’s Malay.

Please stop insulting your own race and scrap the New Economic Policy. And for goodness sake, stop that kris-waving wayang.