Ambassador-at-large Bilahari Kausikan's commentary 'Singapore is not an island', published on Tuesday, has drawn responses from across the Causeway. The piece discussed the systemic change Malaysia is on the cusp of and the possibility of an overwhelmingly Malay-dominant government and a Chinese opposition led by the Democratic Action Party (DAP), and the consequences for Singapore.
On 8 Oct, Malaysia's DAP Tony Pua responded to the article below. His response is appended below after Bilahari's article.
On 9 Oct, Straits Times publised excerpts of Pua's response as well as another DAP MP, Ong Kian Ming, and then asked Bilahari for a reaction. Ong's response and Bilahari's second reaction are appended at the end.
13 Oct: Added report on Lim Kit Siang's comments/remarks, and Bilahari's response.]
Singapore is not an island
6 Oct 2015
Bilahari Kausikan
Malaysia is undergoing a systemic change that has profound consequences for Singapore
What do most Singaporeans make of recent events in Malaysia? Bersih. Pesaka. 1MDB. A deputy prime minister sacked. Protests and counter-protests.
Are we so inured to commotions across the Causeway that they seem no more than the faint tolling of distant bells, evoking only bemusement and schadenfreude? Our system works, so shrug and tend our own garden.
If this is the attitude, it is mistaken. We are indeed different. But I believe Malaysia may be on the cusp of a systemic change that could have profound implications for us.
Since 1957, first Malaya then Malaysia, was premised on a political and social compact that had Malay dominance as its cardinal principle. So long as this was not challenged, other races could have their own space. In political terms, this compact was reflected in a system structured around an alliance of race-based political parties with the dominant Malay party - United Malays National Organisation or Umno - at its centre.
The Chinese were represented by the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA), later joined by Gerakan; the Indians by the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC). Two opposition parties, the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS ), were in principle multiracial, but in practice largely Chinese and Malay and in any case were peripheral.
It was our refusal to accept the system's cardinal principle that led to Separation from Malaysia in 1965. But it was a system that had its own coherence and until relatively recently, it did not serve Malaysia badly. And despite the complexities of bilateral relations and occasional periods of tension, over the last 50 years, it was a system we learnt to work with, while going our own way.
That familiar system is now under immense stress. It is not certain that it can hold together.
PRESSURE POINT
The pressure point is religion. Arab influences from the Middle East have for several decades steadily eroded the Malay variant of Islam in which adat or traditional practices coexisted with the Quran in a syncretic, tolerant synthesis, replacing it with a more austere and exclusive interpretation of Islam. This is one aspect of a broader process of globalisation which is a sociocultural and not just an economic phenomenon. It has changed the texture of Malaysian society, I think irreversibly.
It is impossible for any country to insulate itself from globalisation. Religion in Singapore is not immune from globalisation's consequences, and not just in our Muslim community. Evangelical Christianity is one example. But Singapore is organised on the principle of multiracial meritocracy. So long as this is accepted by all races and religions as the foundation of our identity, the most corrosive political effects are mitigated. In the Singapore system, God - every God - and Caesar are separate and so all Gods must perforce co-exist, with the state playing the role of neutral arbiter.
Not so in Malaysia.
The cardinal principle of Malay dominance is enshrined in the Constitution, which also places Islam as the first component in the definition of a Malay. This makes the mixture of religion and politics well-nigh inevitable. Umno politicians have been unable to resist the temptation to use religion for electoral advantage. They are responding to the logic of the system as it has evolved.
In 2001, former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made a fundamental political error when he tried to undercut PAS by declaring that Malaysia was already an Islamic state. A constitutional controversy ensued. But the most damaging consequences were political not legal. Tun Dr Mahathir's incautious declaration gave a sharper political focus to the changes in the interpretation of Islam that were under way and catalysed a competitive dynamic in which those inclined to religious moderation were inevitably outbid and overwhelmed.
The result has been an increasingly pronounced emphasis on religion in Umno's political identity and a significant and continuing narrowing of the political and social space for non-Muslims.
Surveys show that Malaysian Malays privilege Islamic credentials over other qualities they look for in their leaders. A Merdeka Centre survey this year revealed that 60 per cent of Malaysian Malays polled identified themselves as Muslims first rather than Malaysians or even Malays. Demography accentuates the political impact of these attitudes. In 1957 the Chinese constituted 45 per cent of Malaya (West Malaysia). In 2010, they constituted only 24.6 per cent of Malaysia including East Malaysia. Malay fertility rates are significantly higher than both Chinese and Indians.
In the 2013 Malaysian General Election, the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition got only 13 per cent of the Chinese vote. Two days after the election, Utusan Malaysia, an Umno mouthpiece, pointedly asked "Apa Lagi Cina Mau?" (What more do the Chinese want?)
The question was provocatively phrased, but not entirely unreasonable. Prime Minister Najib Razak tried hard to win back Chinese votes but got almost nothing for his efforts. MCA won only seven seats. Gerakan was wiped out.
The DAP won 38 seats, the largest number in the opposition coalition.
A NEW SYSTEM IN THE MAKING?
The Chinese parties in BN had clearly lost the trust of Chinese voters. Can MCA win back Chinese votes? Doubtful. MCA is obviously powerless to stem the narrowing political and social space for non-Muslims; the fecklessness of its leaders exposed by constant scandals and internal bickering.
In 2013, BN lost the popular vote but retained its parliamentary majority because of the 47 seats it won in East Malaysia. Native East Malaysians are not ethnically Malay but are classified as bumiputera. Some in Umno began to question whether it was really necessary to work with the Chinese at all. The declining numbers of Chinese in the Malaysian population will sooner or later make them electorally irrelevant to Umno and BN had already retained power without their votes.
Nor can the opposition coalition of the DAP, PAS and Anwar Ibrahim's Parti Keadilan Rakyat - Pakatan Rakyat (PR) - form a new multiracial system. PR was always a motley crew. Although its component parties are in theory multiracial, they have nothing in common except the ambition to displace BN. Only Anwar's charismatic personality and political skills held them uneasily together.
Anwar is now in jail and PR has fallen apart. PAS has left. Without Anwar, Keadilan's future is bleak. The DAP is subject to the demographic constraints of a falling Chinese population and is unlikely to make substantial electoral advances beyond its present strength, although it will probably retain what it now holds. PR's successor - Pakatan Harapan - a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended).
PAS has purged its moderate leadership and is now led by the ulama. Umno is increasingly relying on religion to legitimise itself. Umno and PAS may eventually form some sort of de facto if not de jure alliance that could be the core of a new ruling system. There may be token ornaments of other races, but the Malaysian system will then comprise an overwhelmingly dominant Malay government with a DAP-led Chinese opposition. This will be potentially explosive.
I do not know if such a system will really replace the current system, but it certainly seems possible, even probable. It will not happen overnight. But the controversy over 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) could well hasten its emergence. The recent demonstrations seem to foreshadow such a development.
STRUGGLE FOR POWER IN UMNO
The anti-government Bersih demonstrations held in late August this year were, despite a sprinkling of other races, predominantly Chinese affairs. PAS, which had joined previous Bersih demonstrations, stayed away. The organisers claimed the demonstrations were apolitical, but the DAP with Keadilan clearly played significant roles.
Last month, a pro-government counter-demonstration was organised by Pesaka - a right-wing Malay group ostensibly devoted to silat, the Malay martial art. The demonstration was almost entirely Malay, positioned as defending Malay rights and marked by fierce racial rhetoric. Before the demonstration, posters were displayed, captioned "Cina turun Bersih, sedialah bermandi darah" (Chinese who attend Bersih, be ready to be bathed in blood) which depicted a Bersih supporter being slashed with a parang. A flier with a similar slogan was found at DAP headquarters.
Umno denied organising the demonstration. Datuk Seri Najib did not attend but said he had no objections to Umno members doing so. The president of Pesaka is an Umno leader. Another Umno politician, who was one of the driving forces of the Pesaka demonstration, proudly admitted he was racist because it was under the Constitution.
Thankfully, violence at these demonstrations was avoided by the strong police presence. But the demonstrations certainly raised the temperature of an already racially fraught atmosphere.
Although the authorities denied it, the affray that broke out in July at Low Yat Plaza, a mainly Chinese shopping area in Kuala Lumpur, after a Malay youth was accused of stealing a mobile phone, was certainly racial. It exposed the tinderbox Malaysia had become.
Shortly after news broke about US$700 million (S$1 billion) believed to be from 1MBD being traced to what was alleged to be Mr Najib's personal account, a Putrajaya spokesman said: "The Prime Minister has not taken any funds for personal use."
Umno has always operated through a system of patronage. If this is what the spokesman was hinting at, then Dr Mahathir's accusations against Mr Najib ring hollow. Did he not preside over the same system and for far longer than any other Malaysian prime minister?
This system also means that Mr Najib is in no imminent danger of being forced from office so long as he holds the majority of Umno divisions and retains Malay support. Frustration may account for Dr Mahathir's attendance at the Bersih demonstration which I do not think has raised the good doctor's standing with the Malay ground.
The 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno.
Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.
The intra-Umno power struggle is not over. Mr Najib retains his office but has been politically damaged. Dr Mahathir's reputation may have been dented, but he still has a following within Umno and the Malay public.
Mr Najib cannot allow himself to be outflanked on the right. Two days after the September demonstration, he attended a Pesaka gathering. He praised Pesaka members as being "willing to die" for the government and said "Malay people can also show that we are still able to rise when our dignity is challenged, when our leaders are insulted, criticised, shamed", adding, "We respect other races. But don't forget: Malays also have their feelings. Malays also have their limits."
WHAT NEXT?
A former minister, Tan Sri Zainuddin Maidin, has said that "if Najib succeeds in uniting Umno and PAS, then I am confident the Malays will forgive his grave mistakes", adding that "after fulfilling this large and sincere task" he should step down and hand power to former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin.
I do not know if Mr Najib feels he has committed "grave mistakes". But he certainly will not hand over power to a man he unceremoniously sacked. Still, Mr Zainuddin is probably not wrong about anyone who brings Umno and PAS together becoming a Malay hero. It may not be Mr Najib, but the trajectory of political developments in Malaysia already seems to point in that direction.
Malaysia and Singapore are each other's second-largest trading partner. Malaysia is Singapore's sixth-largest investment destination and we are the top investor in IM. Every day tens of thousands of Malaysians commute across the Causeway to work in Singapore. It is in our interest to see Malaysia stable with a healthy economy.
Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies. Dr Mahathir did trot out his tired line about Singapore Malays being marginalised. But it did not catch fire. Did the government dampen the spark? No way of knowing for sure but if it did, it is one more black mark against Mr Najib in the old man's book.
We, of course, have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia. But some systems will be easier to work with than others. And the current heightened state of racial tensions suggests that we should not assume that the transition from one system to another will necessarily be peaceful.
It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means.
Any new system will still be built around this principle, and if it has some form of Umno-PAS collaboration at its centre, enforcement of this principle will be even more rigorous with even less space for non-Muslims.
The respected Malay poet and writer Pak Samad recently warned "the way race issues are played up… it is not impossible that things will peak into a state of emergency".
Pak Samad is a member of the DAP and he was appealing to the government to take a more equitable attitude towards all races. But his views and those of some idealistic young urban Malays are exceptional and, during an intra-Umno power struggle when the banner of Malay dominance is raised particularly high, utterly irrelevant.
Singaporeans should also note that no country's domestic politics exists in a geopolitical vacuum.
CHINESE AMBASSADOR'S REMARKS
In the midst of these unfolding developments, China's ambassador to Malaysia made his way to Kuala Lumpur's Chinatown. Close to where only a few days previously the police had to use water cannons to disperse a potentially violent anti-Chinese Pesaka-led demonstration, the ambassador read out a statement that among other things pronounced the Chinese government's opposition to terrorism, any form of racial discrimination and extremism, adding for good measure that it would be a shame if the peace of Petaling Street was disrupted by the ill-intentioned and that Beijing would not stand idly by if anything threatened the interests of its citizens and Malaysia-China relations.
Under other circumstances these sentiments would perhaps have passed notice. But the timing and context laid the ambassador's words and actions open to disquieting interpretations.
Was it just bad judgment? What was he trying to do? If the ambassador was trying to help the Malaysian Chinese, then he failed miserably. He probably made things worse for them by confirming the worst suspicions of the Malay right wing.
But were the interests of Malaysian Chinese even a consideration? Was the intention to highlight a rising China's clout? The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman defended the ambassador's visit to Petaling Street as "normal" and emphasised China's adherence to the principle of non-interference. But this was of course what she would have said irrespective of China's intentions.
More telling perhaps was the apparent confusion over whether or not the Chinese ambassador should be summoned to explain himself. This should have been obvious. A retired Malaysian diplomat who used to deal with China pointed out the dangerous precedent that would be set if no action was taken. But different Malaysian ministers contradicted each other, with a clearly frustrated Foreign Minister Anifah Aman finally telling them all to leave it to Wisma Putra.
Was this the consequence of China's influence? Possibly. In the end, some sort of meeting with Wisma Putra seems to have occurred. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi subsequently announced that the Malaysian Cabinet decided to "call in" the Chinese ambassador (he was careful to make clear the ambassador was not being "summoned").
LESSON FOR SINGAPORE
We cannot solve other people's problems. Malaysians must work out their own destiny and we will have to live with their choices.
Are we completely immune to contagion from Malaysia? After 50 years, does our collective Singapore identity now trump racial identities? Maybe under some circumstances. Optimistically, perhaps even most circumstances. But under all circumstances?
I doubt it. Let us wish Malaysia well and hope that the worst does not occur.
But it would be prudent to take no chances and prepare ourselves as if it might. The first step is for all Singaporeans to understand what is happening in our neighbourhood and realistically appreciate our own circumstances.
Deterrence and diplomacy are necessary to reduce the temptation that some in Malaysia may have to externalise their problems and minimise the bilateral friction that will sometimes be unavoidable. Strong deterrence and agile diplomacy must be underpinned by national cohesion which in turn rests on a foundation of common understandings.
Of late it seems to have become fashionable for some sections of our intelligentsia to downplay or even dismiss our vulnerabilities. Some political parties tried variants of this line during our recent General Election. Are they blind and deaf to what is happening around us? Is their desire for notoriety or political advantage so overwhelming as to make them indifferent to the consequences? Malaysia is not the only concern. The haze is a daily reminder that all is not well down south too.
This is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods.
The writer, a former permanent secretary for foreign affairs, is now ambassador-at-large.
---------
[And here is the reaction/response from Malaysia, specifically, DAP's Tony Pua.]
‘Delusional’ young Malaysians have hearts and souls – Tony Pua
8 October 2015
‘Delusional’ young Malaysians have hearts and souls – Tony Pua
8 October 2015
I refer to the lengthy 3,000-word opinion piece by Singapore’s ambassador-at-large, Bilahari Kausikan, “Singapore is not an island”, dated published in The Singapore Straits Times on October 6.
Bilahari wrote in his analytical piece, referring to the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese community and the turnout at the recent Bersih 4 rally, that:
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means."
In fact, he even warned that the likely outcome of the above will be “even less space for non-Muslims”.
The top Singapore diplomat could not have gotten it more wrong.
Firstly, Bilahari needs to distinguish the principle of Malay “dominance” which is significantly different from Malay “supremacy” contested by most opposition voices.
No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.
Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominates the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.
[Pua may have a point. Or not. The difference is Singapore's politics is not race-based. One may cynically amend, "not overtly race-based", and even if that were true, the fact that it is not overt is a limitation and a significant and effective constraint on how politics is practiced in Singapore. The Chinese may dominate, but because our politics is NOT (Overtly) race-based, there is NO QUESTION of Chinese Supremacy. And when chauvinistic politicians (Tang Liang Hong) attempt to do so, they are called on it. Bilihari addressed this above:
Singapore is organised on the principle of multiracial meritocracy. So long as this is accepted by all races and religions as the foundation of our identity, the most corrosive political effects are mitigated.
That is why Pua's analogy fails.
Pua makes a distinction between Malay Dominance and Malay Supremacy, and argues that the minority in Malaysia accepts the former, and challenges the latter. Pua and other opposition parties may challenge the latter, and make a distinction between dominance and supremacy. But do the Malays in UMNO use this or even see this distinction? Or has Melayu Ketuanan morphed into something that encompasses both? Is Pua and his ilk deluded (as Bilahari implies in his response, below) that such distinctions are defensible and immutable?]
And perhaps Bilahari has overlooked the fact that even DAP, whose leaders are undeniably comprised of a Chinese majority, fully support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the prime ministerial candidate for Malaysia. As far as we can tell, Anwar is and has always been a Malay and a Muslim.
[And here Pua makes the logical and comical fallacy of "some of my best friends are Malay". The fact that he thinks this is proof of the minority accepting Malay dominance is pathetic.]
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
[Intent is one thing. Perception is another. Reality is yet another thing, but some cynic might say that perception is reality. As for intent, good ones are used to pave the road to hell. This is the reality: PAS that used to be a significant part of Bersih, sat out Bersih 4.0 leaving the participants predominantly Chinese. Sure it is not about race. It is anti-establishment, and anti-corruption. It just so happens that the Establishment is Malay, and the corrupted are Malays. And the protesters are mostly Chinese. Not racial at all.]
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.
Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
[Right! Bilahari pulled this one totally out of his arse! Dr M didn't even attend the Bersih 4 rally! (He did.) He never asked for Najib to step down! (He did.) And he did not criticise or attack Najib publicly! (He did.) So Bilahari totally pulled this out of thin air to make it seem like UMNO is split. Right! Good to know who is deluded here.]
He argued that:
"[t]he 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.It is clear from the above, Bilahari wanted to persuade Singaporeans that despite the disgraceful multi-billion ringgit corruption scandal Najib is entangled with and his less than legitimate election to office with funds sourced from dubious unknown sources, it is better the devil you can cut deals with.
"Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies."
While Singaporeans “have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia”, he emphasised that “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.
Clearly as the ambassador-at-large, Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass.
It is less important for him to support “what is right and just”, as opposed to “what is in it for me” in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.
[What a hypocrite! So Singapore is supposed to support the DAP, Malaysian oppositions, Pakatan Harapan or whatever against the duly elected government of Malaysia? Who do you think we are? Dr Mahathir? Let me assure Tony Pua that if tomorrow or whenever, Pakatan Harapan, DAP, or whatever coalition of opposition parties are elected into office and forms the govt of Malaysia, Singapore Govt will send a message of congratulations to the new govt and new PM. The govt of Malaysia is for the People of Malaysia to elect, and NO OTHER GOVT has any legitimate role to support one party or another or to agitate for what one party deems "right and just". "Right and Just" is for DAP to sell to the voters. Meanwhile UMNO will be selling "Melayu Ketuanan" and winning.]
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
[Actually, you missed out the important part: "they have nothing in common except the ambition to displace BN."]
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
This is because these allegedly “delusional” young Malaysians actually have hearts and souls. This is where hope is effervescent.
[Right! And of course Hope as a strategy always works.]
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
[It's ok. you don't have to show that you are not erudite.]
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
---------
Bilahari's response on Facebook:
One of the most common forms of delusion in political affairs is to mistake one's hopes and dreams for reality or to believe that if one wishes fervently enough for something it will become reality. I do not begrudge Mr Pua his hopes and dreams and I wish him and indeed all Malaysians of all races well. But I fear this particular hope and dream may well lead to disaster; it did in the past and if it happens again Singapore -- my sole concern -- cannot but be affected. So my hope is that that whatever their dreams, the DAP's policies will be made during their waking hours.
--------
MALAY VOTES VITAL FOR MAJORITY WIN
Oct 9 2015
ONG KIAN MING
DEMOCRATIC ACTION PARTY
MP FOR SERDANG
In his op-ed titled "Singapore is not an island", Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore's Ambassador-at-large and S R Nathan fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, was quick to interpret the current political struggle in Malaysia as one that pitted the Muslims against the non-Muslims and the Malays against the non-Malays, specifically the Chinese.
I was surprised by his choice to interpret the political events in Malaysia through this narrow lens, especially given his diplomatic experience, rather than to examine the political forces in Malaysia as part of a larger global trend, where regimes that were once seen as impregnable were brought down through a peaceful electoral route. And it is this route which the opposition forces in Malaysia are committed to.
[That's YOUR narrative. It serves your political purpose to see your struggle as part of a larger global trend. Sure.]
Malaysia's Barisan Nasional coalition is currently the longest- ruling government via popular elections in contemporary political history. But it is not the longest. The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, ruled Mexico unchallenged from 1929 to 2000 with regular elections. But in the 2000 presidential elections, the PRI candidate, Francisco Labastida Ochoa, lost to PAN's Vicente Fox Quesada, a former Coca-Cola executive and governor of Guanajuato, in a three-horse race.
In 2000, the uninterrupted rule of the Kuomintang party in Taiwan was also ended with the victory of the Democratic Progressive Party's Chen Shui-bian, also in a three-horse race.
More recently, Japan's Liberal Democratic Party, which had dominated post-war politics in Japan for more than half a century, lost the 2009 general election to the Democratic Party of Japan.
What did these regimes have in common? Many years of political dominance had led to ever- increasing amounts of unchecked corruption. Inter-elite splits within the ruling coalition had slowly weakened them over time. And the opposition had consolidated and/or strengthened over time in order to pool their forces to defeat the long-ruling regime.
[Well, all the pieces are in place EXCEPT for the part about "opposition consolidating".]
This is the context in which Malaysia is finding itself today. [No it isn't.] Given Malaysia's electoral system, that is, a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, the opposition cannot count on winning power via elite splits in a presidential race. Furthermore, in a grossly malapportioned electoral system, the only way in which the opposition can win a majority of seats is by winning at least some of the semi-urban and rural seats on top of the urban seats it overwhelmingly won in the 2013 general election. And given that these semi-urban and rural seats are predominantly Malay or Bumiputera (in Sabah and Sarawak), this would mean that the opposition would have to win a larger percentage of the Malay and Bumiputera vote. No one in the opposition is deluded in thinking that we can win a majority of seats just by winning an overwhelming majority of non-Malay, and especially Chinese, votes. Nor are we deluding our supporters into thinking this.
Indeed, Ambassador Kausikan should be reminded that 40 Bumiputera (39 Malays and one Kadazan) opposition Members of Parliament were voted into office in the 2013 general election, compared with just 32 Malay MPs in the 1999 general election, which saw PAS emerging as the largest opposition party.
[I was going to say something smart-alecky like "wow, from 32 opposition Malays in 1999 to 40 in 2013... that's...." better than SG with 1 in 1984, to 6 in 2015.
Unless.
"Singapore's opposition made a 500% improvement in 30 years! MY only had a 25% improvement over 14 years. Pathetic!"]
What we want to do, in fact, what we have to do, is to build a broad-based coalition which can win at last 60 per cent of the popular vote (which would mean winning a significant percentage of the Malay and Bumiputera vote). We can do this not just by highlighting the excesses in terms of corruption and abuse of power by the ruling coalition, the rise in the cost of living due to the ham-fisted implementation of the goods and services tax and the pathetic attempt by the ruling coalition to raise inter-ethnic tensions, but also by presenting a set of clear policy alternatives on how a new opposition coalition can govern better, compared with the ruling regime.
[Good stuff! Should put it in your manifesto.]
Ambassador Kausikan is right to say that Singapore has "no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia". But one cannot help but wonder if his fears about a possible transition in power in Malaysia, especially one that is peaceful and well-ordered, is driven more by his fears of such a possibility in Singapore in the distant but foreseeable future than by his concern of what might happen in Malaysia.
BILAHARI'S RESPONSE TO DAP MPS' STATEMENTS
(In Straits Times)
I can understand their hopes, but hopes are not reality.
The emotions on display prove my point and serve as a useful reminder to Singaporeans that the social cohesion that we currently enjoy is not to be taken for granted. I wish all the peoples of Malaysia well, but my concern is Singapore.
------
Bilahari is a delusional, ugly Singaporean, says Kit Siang
Akmal Hakim
DAP's Lim Kit Siang says individuals with Bilahari Kausikan's mindset
were destructive to the nation’s harmony as they spread confusion and
incoherence.
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 11, 2015:
DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang today lashed out against Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan, referring to the latter as a “smart-aleck” and an “ugly Singaporean”.
He said that Bilahari lacked the understanding of what was currently transpiring in Malaysia and that he had no right to comment on the nation’s political and societal state.
“Ugly Singaporeans like Bilahari Kausikan suffer the delusion that they understand the dynamics of what is happening in Malaysia and even have the impertinence to prescribe how citizens in other countries should conduct themselves,” he said in a statement today.
The Gelang Patah lawmaker’s statement came after Bilahari, in his latest Facebook posting, labelled DAP Member of Parliament Tony Pua as being rude and incoherent.
He added that individuals with Bilahari’s mindset were destructive to the nation’s harmony as they spread confusion and incoherence.
“It is unfortunate Bilahari is giving grist to the mill of those who oppose Malaysia moving away from the politics of race to be replaced with the politics of issues, by continuing to spread the ‘delusion’ that Malaysian politics is a battle between Malays and Chinese when it is increasingly about issues of freedom, justice, the rule of law and good governance.”
[Well, that's not delusional.]
The spat between Pua and Bilahari began when the latter first wrote an opinion piece in the Singapore Straits Times claiming that Malaysia’s Chinese youth were “delusional” in their perceived attempt to change a system built around the principle of Malay dominance.
Pua then responded that Bilahari’s description of Bersih 4 rally-goers as “delusional” portrays the island republic as Southeast Asia’s “mercenary prick”.
The DAP publicity chairman also said Bilahari did Singapore no favour by cementing the perception of his country as the “mercenary prick of Southeast Asia”.
Pua also said that those who demonstrated at the Bersih 4 rally had not made racial demands, but had expressed their hopes for a better Malaysia, “defined by justice, good governance and democratic ideals”.
-----
October 12, 2015
KUALA LUMPUR — Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan has sought to draw a line under a war of words between him and Malaysian opposition lawmaker Tony Pua this week, saying that he does not care “if it makes Mr Pua feel better to call me and Singapore names” but it will not change reality. Mr Kausikan’s comments yesterday (Oct 10) came as another Malaysian opposition politician waded into the debate, calling the envoy a “smart alec and Ugly Singaporean”.
Mr Kausikan said: “Some people have asked me why I have not given a more robust reply to Mr Pua’s rude comments about me and Singapore in general. Well, those of you who know me personally should know that I am not generally a gentle person. But in this case I thought that Mr Pua’s crudity speaks for itself more tellingly than anything I could have written.”
Mr Pua had called Mr Kausikan a “mercenary prick” last Friday.
In a blog post yesterday, the Malaysian leader of opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), Lim Kit Siang, criticised the envoy for having “the impertinence to prescribe how citizens in other countries should conduct themselves”.
“It is unfortunate that Ugly Singaporeans like (Mr Kausikan) are … continuing to spread the ‘delusion’ that Malaysian politics is a battle between Malays and Chinese when it is increasingly about issues of freedom, justice, the rule of law and good governance,” wrote the DAP parliamentary leader.
Mr Lim’s comments came after Mr Kausikan had argued in a commentary last Tuesday that Malaysia’s Chinese youth have forgotten the lessons from the 1969 racial riots and are “delusional” in their perceived attempt to change a system built around the principle of Malay dominance.
Singapore’s former Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs also warned that should they succeed in bringing in a new system, it will only lead to even more rigorous enforcement of Malay dominance with less space for non-Muslims.
In response to Mr Kausikan’s commentary, Mr Pua and various other DAP lawmakers argued that attendees at an anti-government rally organised by electoral reform group Bersih 2.0 in August — believed to be attended mostly by Chinese — were there purely to demand accountability from the government and not to pursue racial dominance.
Mr Kausikan observed that based on comments by Mr Pua’s and other DAP lawmakers over the past week, the Malaysian opposition politicians were demonstrating a pattern of idealism that was not grounded in reality.
“If an erstwhile political leader deceives himself and his followers into chasing an impossible dream and so leads them into disaster, that can only be called irresponsible. I would not care very much, except that the particular species of disaster that may befall Malaysia on its present trajectory cannot but to a greater or lesser degree also affect Singapore. So we must understand what is going on across the causeway and prepare ourselves the best we can,” wrote the envoy. AGENCIES
I refer to the lengthy 3,000-word opinion piece by Singapore’s ambassador-at-large, Bilahari Kausikan, “Singapore is not an island”, dated published in The Singapore Straits Times on October 6.
Bilahari wrote in his analytical piece, referring to the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese community and the turnout at the recent Bersih 4 rally, that:
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means."
In fact, he even warned that the likely outcome of the above will be “even less space for non-Muslims”.
The top Singapore diplomat could not have gotten it more wrong.
Firstly, Bilahari needs to distinguish the principle of Malay “dominance” which is significantly different from Malay “supremacy” contested by most opposition voices.
No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.
Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominates the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.
And perhaps Bilahari has overlooked the fact that even DAP, whose leaders are undeniably comprised of a Chinese majority, fully support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the prime ministerial candidate for Malaysia. As far as we can tell, Anwar is and has always been a Malay and a Muslim.
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.
Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He argued that:
"[t]he 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.
"Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies."
It is clear from the above, Bilahari wanted to persuade Singaporeans that despite the disgraceful multi-billion ringgit corruption scandal r Najib is entangled with and his less than legitimate election to office with funds sourced from dubious unknown sources, it is better the devil you can cut deals with.
While Singaporeans “have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia”, he emphasised that “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.
Clearly as the ambassador-at-large, Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass.
It is less important for him to support “what is right and just”, as opposed to “what is in it for me” in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
This is because these allegedly “delusional” young Malaysians actually have hearts and souls. This is where hope is effervescent.
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
- See more at:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-delusional-young-malaysians-have-hearts-and-souls-tony-pua#sthash.T2g4XCzK.QJ0OwMzh.dpuf
I refer to the lengthy 3,000-word opinion piece by Singapore’s ambassador-at-large, Bilahari Kausikan, “Singapore is not an island”, dated published in The Singapore Straits Times on October 6.
Bilahari wrote in his analytical piece, referring to the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese community and the turnout at the recent Bersih 4 rally, that:
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means."
In fact, he even warned that the likely outcome of the above will be “even less space for non-Muslims”.
The top Singapore diplomat could not have gotten it more wrong.
Firstly, Bilahari needs to distinguish the principle of Malay “dominance” which is significantly different from Malay “supremacy” contested by most opposition voices.
No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.
Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominates the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.
And perhaps Bilahari has overlooked the fact that even DAP, whose leaders are undeniably comprised of a Chinese majority, fully support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the prime ministerial candidate for Malaysia. As far as we can tell, Anwar is and has always been a Malay and a Muslim.
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.
Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He argued that:
"[t]he 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.
"Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies."
It is clear from the above, Bilahari wanted to persuade Singaporeans that despite the disgraceful multi-billion ringgit corruption scandal r Najib is entangled with and his less than legitimate election to office with funds sourced from dubious unknown sources, it is better the devil you can cut deals with.
While Singaporeans “have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia”, he emphasised that “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.
Clearly as the ambassador-at-large, Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass.
It is less important for him to support “what is right and just”, as opposed to “what is in it for me” in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
This is because these allegedly “delusional” young Malaysians actually have hearts and souls. This is where hope is effervescent.
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
- See more at:
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/the-delusional-young-malaysians-have-hearts-and-souls-tony-pua#sthash.T2g4XCzK.QJ0OwMzh.dpuf
The spat between Pua and Bilahari began when the latter first wrote an opinion piece in the Singapore Straits Times claiming that Malaysia’s Chinese youth were “delusional” in their perceived attempt to change a system built around the principle of Malay dominance.
Pua then responded that Bilahari’s description of Bersih 4 rally-goers as “delusional” portrays the island republic as Southeast Asia’s “mercenary prick”.
The DAP publicity chairman also said Bilahari did Singapore no favour by cementing the perception of his country as the “mercenary prick of Southeast Asia”.
Pua also said that those who demonstrated at the Bersih 4 rally had not made racial demands, but had expressed their hopes for a better Malaysia, “defined by justice, good governance and democratic ideals”.
-----
Kausikan says names will not change reality in response to jibes
KUALA LUMPUR — Singapore’s Ambassador-at-Large Bilahari Kausikan has sought to draw a line under a war of words between him and Malaysian opposition lawmaker Tony Pua this week, saying that he does not care “if it makes Mr Pua feel better to call me and Singapore names” but it will not change reality. Mr Kausikan’s comments yesterday (Oct 10) came as another Malaysian opposition politician waded into the debate, calling the envoy a “smart alec and Ugly Singaporean”.
Mr Kausikan said: “Some people have asked me why I have not given a more robust reply to Mr Pua’s rude comments about me and Singapore in general. Well, those of you who know me personally should know that I am not generally a gentle person. But in this case I thought that Mr Pua’s crudity speaks for itself more tellingly than anything I could have written.”
Mr Pua had called Mr Kausikan a “mercenary prick” last Friday.
In a blog post yesterday, the Malaysian leader of opposition Democratic Action Party (DAP), Lim Kit Siang, criticised the envoy for having “the impertinence to prescribe how citizens in other countries should conduct themselves”.
“It is unfortunate that Ugly Singaporeans like (Mr Kausikan) are … continuing to spread the ‘delusion’ that Malaysian politics is a battle between Malays and Chinese when it is increasingly about issues of freedom, justice, the rule of law and good governance,” wrote the DAP parliamentary leader.
Mr Lim’s comments came after Mr Kausikan had argued in a commentary last Tuesday that Malaysia’s Chinese youth have forgotten the lessons from the 1969 racial riots and are “delusional” in their perceived attempt to change a system built around the principle of Malay dominance.
Singapore’s former Permanent Secretary for Foreign Affairs also warned that should they succeed in bringing in a new system, it will only lead to even more rigorous enforcement of Malay dominance with less space for non-Muslims.
In response to Mr Kausikan’s commentary, Mr Pua and various other DAP lawmakers argued that attendees at an anti-government rally organised by electoral reform group Bersih 2.0 in August — believed to be attended mostly by Chinese — were there purely to demand accountability from the government and not to pursue racial dominance.
Mr Kausikan observed that based on comments by Mr Pua’s and other DAP lawmakers over the past week, the Malaysian opposition politicians were demonstrating a pattern of idealism that was not grounded in reality.
“If an erstwhile political leader deceives himself and his followers into chasing an impossible dream and so leads them into disaster, that can only be called irresponsible. I would not care very much, except that the particular species of disaster that may befall Malaysia on its present trajectory cannot but to a greater or lesser degree also affect Singapore. So we must understand what is going on across the causeway and prepare ourselves the best we can,” wrote the envoy. AGENCIES
‘Delusional’ young Malaysians have hearts and souls – Tony Pua
Bilahari wrote in his analytical piece, referring to the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese community and the turnout at the recent Bersih 4 rally, that:
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means."
The top Singapore diplomat could not have gotten it more wrong.
Firstly, Bilahari needs to distinguish the principle of Malay “dominance” which is significantly different from Malay “supremacy” contested by most opposition voices.
No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.
Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominates the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.
And perhaps Bilahari has overlooked the fact that even DAP, whose leaders are undeniably comprised of a Chinese majority, fully support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the prime ministerial candidate for Malaysia. As far as we can tell, Anwar is and has always been a Malay and a Muslim.
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.
Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He argued that:
"[t]he 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.
"Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies."
It is clear from the above, Bilahari wanted to persuade Singaporeans that despite the disgraceful multi-billion ringgit corruption scandal r Najib is entangled with and his less than legitimate election to office with funds sourced from dubious unknown sources, it is better the devil you can cut deals with.
While Singaporeans “have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia”, he emphasised that “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.
Clearly as the ambassador-at-large, Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass.
It is less important for him to support “what is right and just”, as opposed to “what is in it for me” in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
This is because these allegedly “delusional” young Malaysians actually have hearts and souls. This is where hope is effervescent.
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
‘Delusional’ young Malaysians have hearts and souls – Tony Pua
Bilahari wrote in his analytical piece, referring to the overwhelming anti-establishment sentiment of the Chinese community and the turnout at the recent Bersih 4 rally, that:
"It is my impression that many young Malaysian Chinese have forgotten the lessons of May 13, 1969. They naively believe that the system built around the principle of Malay dominance can be changed. That may be why they abandoned MCA for the DAP. They are delusional. Malay dominance will be defended by any means."
The top Singapore diplomat could not have gotten it more wrong.
Firstly, Bilahari needs to distinguish the principle of Malay “dominance” which is significantly different from Malay “supremacy” contested by most opposition voices.
No one denies that Malays will dominate the sphere of politics and economy in Malaysia. They will generally dominate purely because they comprise of the majority in the country.
Perhaps Bilahari can understand the distinction better in the context of Singapore, where the Chinese indisputably dominates the political, economic and social space. However, that does not translate into a Chinese-supremacist city state.
And perhaps Bilahari has overlooked the fact that even DAP, whose leaders are undeniably comprised of a Chinese majority, fully support Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as the prime ministerial candidate for Malaysia. As far as we can tell, Anwar is and has always been a Malay and a Muslim.
Secondly and more crucially, Bilahari failed to recognise that the anti-establishment sentiment and the recent Bersih 4 rally isn’t at all about race.
No one went to the mega-rally holding placards or shouting slogans making racial demands. Those who attended the rally certainly did not see themselves present to represent their ethnic roots.
They took part in the rally because they aspire for a better country defined not by race or religion, but by the principles of justice, good governance and democratic ideals.
They were angry, frustrated and galvanised to act in the light of the tens of billions of ringgit embezzled and misappropriated by 1MDB, as well as the obscene RM2.6 billion donation deposited into the prime minister’s personal bank account.
Instead of seeing the uproar against 1MDB as a courageous fight against corruption, Bilahari chose to frame the 1MDB scandal as a political fight by juxtaposing Datuk Seri Najib Razak and Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
He argued that:
"[t]he 1MDB scandal is less about corruption than about a struggle for power within Umno. Dr Mahathir seems to have expected to exercise remote control even though he was no longer prime minister. Among his grievances with his successors were their warming of ties with Singapore, Mr Najib's decision to settle the railway land issue, cooperation on Iskandar Malaysia (IM) and the refusal of both Tun Abdullah Badawi and Mr Najib to proceed with his pet white elephant: the "crooked bridge". Dr Mahathir wants to replace Mr Najib with someone more pliable.
"Mr Najib understands that Malaysia and Singapore need each other. So far and unusually we have not figured very much in the controversies."
It is clear from the above, Bilahari wanted to persuade Singaporeans that despite the disgraceful multi-billion ringgit corruption scandal r Najib is entangled with and his less than legitimate election to office with funds sourced from dubious unknown sources, it is better the devil you can cut deals with.
While Singaporeans “have no choice but to work with whatever system or leader emerges in Malaysia”, he emphasised that “some systems will be easier to work with than others”.
Clearly as the ambassador-at-large, Bilahari’s views demonstrate how Singapore as a country, despite its enormous wealth and developed nation status, completely lacks a moral compass.
It is less important for him to support “what is right and just”, as opposed to “what is in it for me” in Singapore’s relations with its neighbours, regardless of how evil or corrupt a regime is.
The former permanent secretary for Foreign Affairs further poured scorn on the attempts to defeat Umno-led Barisan Nasional by mocking Pakatan Harapan as “a coalition of the DAP, Keadilan and a minor breakaway faction from PAS, is a forlorn hope (pun intended)”.
Conversely, I’m proud to be a Malaysian to see hundreds of thousands of Malaysians march the streets of Kuala Lumpur to demand free and fair elections, integrity and accountability from the ruling government against all odds.
This is because these allegedly “delusional” young Malaysians actually have hearts and souls. This is where hope is effervescent.
On the other hand, Bilahari’s unapologetically selfish and arrogant views only cements the perception of Singapore as the contemptible Shylock of Southeast Asia.
He concluded his thesis with a subtle warning that “[t]his is not the most salubrious of neighbourhoods”.
I had to look up the meaning of the word “salubrious” in the dictionary. It means “healthy, wholesome or pleasant”.
Bilahari is ironically spot on. It certainly doesn’t make a “salubrious” neighbourhood with a neighbour who unabashedly locks all his own doors and windows when he sees the resident next door robbed blind in broad daylight. – October 8, 2015.
* Tony Pua is the Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.
No comments:
Post a Comment