The Malaysian Tech Blogger
Posts tagged Lim Guan Eng
Will Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar’s Appointment Be A Whitewash Of Police Brutality On Peaceful Demonstrators
1 year ago
by JohnShen
in News & Politics
Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 10.5.2012.
Will Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar’s Appointment Be A Whitewash Of Police Brutality On Peaceful Demonstrators, A Massive Cover-Up Of The Sufferings Of The Victims Or A Pretext To Justify BN’s Wild Lies That Bersih 3.0 Was A Coup D’état Attempt.
The appointment of former inspector-general of police Tun Mohamad Hanif Omar to head of the independent panel to probe incidents of violence during the Bersih 3.0 rally has raised deep public concerns that the investigation will either be a whitewash of police brutality on peaceful demonstrators, a massive cover-up of the sufferings of the victims or a pretext to justify BN’s wild lies that Bersih 3.0 was a coup d’état attempt. Hanif, who is now Genting Malaysia Bhd Deputy Chair, had claimed that communist sympathizers were involved in the Bersih 3.0 rally, and supported Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s claim that the Bersih 3.0 rally was an attempt to overthrow the government. Hanif further stated that the tactics of using provocateurs to cause the demonstrators to clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get injured were tactics learnt from past pro-communist demonstrations.
How can Datuk Seri Najib Razak consider Hanif as a “credible, experienced and respectable” individual that ensures its investigation panel is independent and unbiased, when Hanif has adopted such a prejudiced and partisan stand against the Bersih 3.0 rally as an attempt to overthrow the government? What makes those claims of a coup d’tat by Najib and Hanif most ridiculous is that both of them ignored the fact that six local pressmen and about 12 photographers and journalists from the foreign media were reportedly assaulted during the fracas on April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally by police. To add insult to injury, Hanif is now heading the investigation panel raising doubts about the integrity, reliability and credibility of its findings. As a former Inspector-General of Police, Hanif is first and foremost disqualified from serving on the investigation panel due to this conflict of interest as the police is being accused. Secondly, by publicly condemning Bersih, Hanif’s prejudiced bias would also disqualify him to serve on the investigation panel. Finally, by linking Bersih to communism, Hanif is still fighting yesterday’s long-concluded wars, making the outcome of these investigations a foregone conclusion. For these reasons, the Prime Minister should try to salvage or restore some credibility and public confidence as well as renew faith that “justice will not only be done but be seen to be done” by replacing Hanif with an independent, apolitical, unbiased and an upright person of integrity.
PR Must Expose BN’s Successful Cover-up Of 3Ds Of Deficit, Debt And Deceit Or Face A Disastrous General Elections That Will Enable BN To Win Back Its 2/3 Majority
1 year ago
by JohnShen
in News & Politics
Yesterday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has clearly indicated that general elections can be called any time soon, buoyed no doubt by confidence in BN’s successful cover-up of 3Ds of deficit,debt and deceit. Unless PR exposes BN’s cover-up of 3Ds, not only will PR not win power in Putrajaya but may even face a disastrous 13th General Elections that will enable BN to win back its 2/3 majority.
BN knows that the critical issue in the coming general elections is its handling of the economy and how the people’s cost of living can be reduced and their economic livelihood increased. Tied to whether BN can help the people’s economically is its management of the Federal government’s debt and budget deficit, which some has traced to its failure to address the menace of corruption.
With the RM250 million National Feedlot ”cows and condos” scandal involving the family of the UMNO Wanita chief as well as the decline in the anti-corruption rankings of Transparency International from No. 37 in 2003 to No. 60 last year, BN has given up on trying to persuade the public that it is serious about fighting corruption. However BN is more successful in deceiving the public that the menace of corruption has not adversely affected the economy, especially the Federal government’s debt and deficit.
BN’s claims that the Federal Government Budget Deficit was RM 43 billion, RM 45.5 billion(estimate) and RM 43 billion(estimate) in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively. In % of GDP, it is 5.6%, 5.4% (estimate) and 4.7%(estimate) for 2010, 2011 and 2012. These budget deficit figures are way too low as the country’s projection of economic growth is too high and our operating expenditures too low.
The budget deficit as a % of GDP in 2012 will be higher than the announced 4.7% to rise to more than 5.5% as a result of BN’s determined efforts to buy votes with government cash handouts, civil servants’ pay increase and big projects such as the roll out of broadband to all schools. Unlike PR state governments that provide social assistance from budget surpluses achieved for the every 4 years PR is in power, BN is giving cash handouts from budget deficits which has been incurred for the last 15 years.
As a result of budget surpluses, PR need not borrow to spend on social programs for the people. However BN Federal government has to borrow to spend, following its 15 years of continuous deficits. This can be seen by Federal government debt increasing by 71% from end 2007 of RM266 billion to RM456 billion by end 2011. Unfortunately this is not the full Federal go vernment debt as contingent liabilities of loans taken by private companies or government agencies are not included.
If contingent liabilities are included, our government debt exposure will increase by RM97 billion in 2010.(Contingent liabilities for 2011 are still not available). Malaysians must remember that there is a day of reckoning for debts borrowed to be repaid. Ultimately, the ordinary people are the ones to pay for all these debts particularly when
Malaysia goes bankrupt.
In 2010, the “off-balance sheet” financing activities has hit a record high of RM96.9 billion in 2010, a 14.9% increase from RM84.3 billion in 2009. These are loans which have been taken with a Government guarantee i.e., the Government is obligated to pay should the borrowers fail to settle the debts. As an example, if the Federal Territories Foundation is unable to repay the proposed RM300 million loan from EPF to provide financing for the low-cost housing purchasers, then the Government will have to step in to make the RM300 million payment to EPF.
Federal Government loan guarantees are expected to increase dramatically with loan guarantees for the West Coast Highway of RM 2.24 billion, at least RM20 billion to fund the first phase of the RM53 billion Klang Valley MRT mega-project, the construction of 74 police headquarters with government-guaranteed RM10 billion debt by MoF-owned Pembinaan BLT Sdn Bhd, or the proposed RM20 billion sukuk plan by Pengurusan Aset Air Bhd (PAAB) to restructure the country’s water assets. These loan guarantees are debt exposures to the Federal government that must be included in our total debt figures.
In contrast, the state government debts of PR state of dropped dramatically just as the BN Federal government debt as soared. In Penang, state government debt was cut by 95% from RM630 million in 8.3.2008 to RM30 million by end of 2011. Unfortunately PR’s debt reduction success compared to BN’s debt piling failure has not been communicated to the public as a result of BN’s successful campaign of deceit. Neither has the fact that BN has to borrow to give people money unlike PR can afford to do so from budget surpluses sunk into people’s hearts and minds.
For this reason, I have asked DAP economic researchers led by DAP Publicity Secretary and MP for Petaling Jaya Utara Tony Pua to work closely with our General Election preparatory Team led by DAP National Vice-Chair And MP for Cheras Tan Kok Wai to expose BN’s cover-up of 3Ds of Deficit, Debt and Deceit.
Lim Guan Eng
Credits: Lim Guan Eng
Dato Seri Najib should publicly withdraw his 17th March remarks
1 year ago
by JohnShen
in News & Politics
Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 23 March 2012.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s criticism of DAP for opting out of the Parliamentary Select Committee (PSC) on the Lynas rare earth plant, saying a solution was needed in the public interest that was above partisan politics is regrettable as it is not based on facts. The DAP and PR has opted out of the PSC principally in the public interest because the DAP did not want to be any part of BN’s attempt to whitewash and delude the public into thinking the Lynas plant is safe.
Datuk Seri Najib should withdraw his earlier remarks on 17 March 2012 published by Bernama to prove his seriousness and sincerity to his latest statement with Mandarin radio station 988 yesterday that the BN government will not allow the Lynas rare earths plant in Gebeng, Kuantan, to operate if scientific evidence proves that it will be harmful to the people’s health and the environment.
Bernama had reported Najib as saying on 17.3.2012 as saying.
The parliamentary select committee(PSC) on the Lynas issue will not decide on the fate of the controversial rare earth plant. Instead, the PSC was part of Putrajaya’s engagement process to ensure the public understood the issues at hand so that we can convince the groups who are still suspicious whether the project is safe or otherwise. He added that he hoped the PSC would raise awareness on the project so that “we can achieve comfort in terms of better public acceptance”.
Going by what the Prime Minister had said on 17.3.2012, the PSC is clearly a sham designed by BN to deliver a “fait accompli” to endorse the Lynas plant and force public acceptance without any due regard for safety, environmental and health concerns. For this reason PR and DAP had refused to participate in the PSC to legitimatize what is essentially wrong and against public interest. By saying then that the PSC would not decide on the fate of Lynas, had reduced the PSC to irrelevance.
For Dato Seri Najib to change his tune to say that the PSC was a “strong basis for us to make a decision” on Lynas is a flip-flop from his 17th March remarks. Clearly this change is the result of PR’s boycott of the PSC. However such a flip-flop only raises more questions whether the Prime Minister is serious and sincere about following through on closing down Lynas in the face of evidence and proof of environmental damage and threats to public health and safety.
To prove his commitment and seriousness, Dato Seri Najib should publicly withdraw his 17th March remarks, order an immediate stop work order on Lynas and declare the BN’s government willingness to pay compensation of at least RM700 million to Lynas spent on building the plant. Any failure to do so will only raise doubts as to the integrity of the PSC headed by Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Khaled Nordin as nothing more than a mere political tool by BN to legitimatize the illegal or justify the unjustifiable.
Lim Guan Eng
Political Will, National Commitment And Even Personal Obligation
1 year ago
by JohnShen
in News & Politics
Political Will, National Commitment And Even Personal Obligation Rather Than A Single Law Such As The WPA Will Determine Whether Integrity In Leadership Centred On An Ethically Based Society Can Be Established.
Speech by the Lim Guan Eng, Chief Minister of Penang, at the 4th Annual Corporate Governance Summit, Kuala Lumpur, on 6 March 2012. (On The Topic: Whistleblowers Revisited – How Effective Has the Enforcement of the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010(WPA) Been in Malaysia?)
It gives me pleasure to speak to us today at this 4th Annual Corporate Governance Summit organised here in Kuala Lumpur. He have been asked to speak on the issue of the Whistleblowers Protection Act 2010 (or “WPA”) which was passed by the federal Parliament and has been in force in Malaysia since December 2010. Many of us here who are interested in corporate governance will have been captivated by the ongoing saga of alleged corruption and mismanagement in the RM250million National Feedlot Centre project. This is a corporate governance issue as well as a national governance issue. The question is will there be any action taken or will be it just be another case of of the RM2.52 billion losses incurred by MAS without anyone being punished and even those that caused losses such as Tan Sri Tajuddin Ramli being let off the hook.
Danaharta had agreed to settle with Tan Sri Tajudin on February 14 without enforcing a High Court decision on December 2009 in Danaharta’s favour ordering Tan Sri Tajudin to pay RM589.14 million to Danaharta, over a loan taken to purchase MAS. Where is the moral hazard? He think he can summarise my view of the WPA by saying that is not so much a Whistleblowers Protection Act but rather a “Whispering to the Police Act”. When one blows a whistle, everyone can hear. This Act is different. It only protects those who report to the police or other government enforcement agencies under conditions of secrecy. Under the WPA, a whistleblower is supposed to make a report to an enforcement agency such as the police. If the police don’t take any action, that is tough. If the police decide that action should be taken, but the Attorney-General decides not to prosecute, that again is tough. All you have as a whistleblower is the right to be notified of the authorities’ decision, and the right not to have any detrimental action taken against us.
Under the New South Wales Public Interest Disclosure Act, if no action is taken by the enforcement agencies, a whistleblower will be protected if he brings the matter to the attention of a Member of Parliament or the media. In the UK, once he has reported the wrongdoing, or if he reasonably fears retribution from his employer, there is no restriction at all on whom a whistleblower can notify as long as the disclosure in good faith and judged by an employment tribunal to have been reasonable in the circumstances. However, in Malaysia, it is an offence punishable by a fine of up to RM50,000 and imprisonment of up to 10 years if a whistleblower or the person receiving or investigating the report discloses any information about the person accused of wrongdoing, or any other information disclosed by the whistleblower, to a third party. Under the WPA, a whistleblower does not enjoy any protection if he decides to communicate his allegation of wrongdoing to a person other than a government enforcement agency. And under the Act, even if the report is made to a government enforcement agency, the protection can be revoked if the enforcement agency is of the opinion that the report “principally involves questioning the merits of government policy, including policy of a public body”, or if the whistleblower commits an offense under the Act, such as disclosing the contents of his report to a third party.
He think we can all see that the WPA would have had absolutely no effect in the present cows and condos scandal, as it would not have protected any whistleblower who believed that the Malaysian public deserved to know about how a RM250 million soft loan given for the rearing of cattle was used to buy luxury condominiums in Bangsar and in Singapore. Without any media and public pressure, it is clear that no action would ever be taken and the allegations of wrongdoing in the NFC issue would simply have hushed up by the authorities. But yet another issue that faces any whistleblower in this country is the fact that any information gained from government sources is routinely deemed to be an official secret, the disclosure of which is punishable under the Official Secrets Act 1972 by imprisonment of a minimum of one year and a maximum of seven years. This is not by any means a hypothetical risk. In 1979, my own father was convicted under the Official Secrets Act when he revealed the purchase price paid by the Government in a Swiss arms deal, though the minimum punishment of one year’s imprisonment was not yet then in place. Such information should be made public. Whilst any person who has been unjustly defamed or maligned by malicious and false police reports should have the right to sue, the authorities should make available to the truthful whistleblower or the “lying” whistleblower as well as to the public all information obtained from such investigations. Even I was sued by the late Tan Sri Eric Chia when I exposed the RM 5 billion Perwaja scandal but I did not obtain the requisite information from the authorities.
The test should always be whether there is real public loss of funds. If there is then the protective safeguards should be in force. If none, then the whistleblower is merely whistling in the wind. More importantly, the MACC or any body authorised to conduct such investigations must be independent, possess powers to prosecute and free from any political oversight and accountable only to Parliament. It is obvious to me, and I hope also to you, that the WPA will always be ineffective in fighting corruption and corporate wrongdoing involving the Government as long as the Official Secrets Act is not abolished and the culture of secrecy in Government is not replaced by a culture of transparency. Since 2008, both Selangor and Penang have enacted Freedom of Information Enactments that gives the rakyat the right to demand information from the Government instead of giving the Government the right to hide information from the rakyat. In Penang, we have replaced direct negotiations with open tenders for all major government contracts, and introduced public asset declarations for all elected State Executive Councillors. The Penang state government does not expect any praise for our political commitment and personal obligation to promote integrity in leadership and transparency. However neither did we expect to be pilloried for politicizing the public declaration of assets and even allowing Ministers to be endangered if they are compelled to follow suit.
Is our crime or public safety or the performance of Malaysian police so appalling that even Ministers are not safe if they publicly declare public assets? Or should I be walking around under police protection since I am endangered as I have declared my assets. This endangered argument is nothing more than a silly pretext by Ministers who want to hide their assets from public view. Those who hide their assets behind this “endangered” argument only arouse public suspicion that they have unexplained or unaccounted assets. But to return to the Act that is the subject of this Session, I am afraid to have to conclude that the WPA unfortunately appears to be the product of the old mindset in this country that values secrecy above everything else. I believe that it is now high time for a culture of openness and transparency to become the norm in Malaysia, both in the corporate world and in the world of Government. The lack of protective safeguards and proactive investigation in the WPA makes no difference for genuine whistleblowers. As long as there is no leadership by example and no moral outrage against those who refuse to comply with international norms of proper behavior and trustworthy conduct of public assets, laws such as the WPA will only be an empty symbol of our fight against corruption.
Despite laws such as the WPA, Malaysia has suffered a precipitous decline in the rankings of Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index from 56 in 2010 to 60 last year. For this reason it is political will, national commitment and even personal obligation rather than a single law such as the WPA will determine whether integrity in leadership centred on an ethically based society can be established. Thank you.
Tindakan keras ke atas orang yang memukul wartawan dan mengancam CM
1 year ago
PSUKPP/21/
29 Februari 2011
YBhg Tan Sri Haji Ismail bin Haji Omar
Ketua Polis Negara
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur
YBhg Tan Sri,
TINDAKAN KERAS KE ATAS AHLI UMNO DAN PERKASA YANG MEMUKUL WARTAWAN DAN MENGANCAM SAYA
Dengan segala hormatnya perkara di atas dirujuk.
2. Seperti yang Tan Sri sedia maklum, pada 26 Februari 2012, beberapa pembantahan telah diadakan di seluruh Malaysia berkenaan dengan isu pembinaan loji nadir bumi Lynas di Kuantan. Malangnya, pembantahan anti-Lynas pada 26 Februari 2012 pada pukul 6:00 petang di Dataran Pidato, Padang Kota Lama, Pulau Pinang, telah diganggu oleh ahli-ahli UMNO dan Perkasa yang telah membuat rusuhan di kawasan itu. Sebelum saya sampai ke situ pada pukul 6:30 petang, saya difahamkan bahawa perusuh-perusuh itu telah cuba memaksa orang awam dan pembantah anti-Lynas balik rumah dan meninggalkan tempat itu. Ramai pula yang ditolak dan dipukul sehingga mereka jatuh, termasuklah wanita-wanita. Adalah nasib baik bahawa mangsa-mangsa tersebut tidak bertindakbalas balik.
3. Ini boleh dilihat dari laporan-laporan media dan juga dari rakaman video yang dilampirkan bersama surat ini, di mana perhimpunan aman yang diadakan di Dataran Pidato Pulau Pinang telah diganggu dan digugat oleh kekecohan sekumpulan orang yang dikenali sebagai ahli-ahli UMNO dan Perkasa Pulau Pinang, yang telah menyerang perhimpunan aman anti-Lynas itu dan telah menggunakan bahasa kasar, makian dan carutan perkauman seperti “Cina Babi, Cina Pulau Pinang Bodoh, Babi Sokong Lim Guan Eng Ketua Menteri”. Ahli-ahli kumpulan tersebut telah juga mengganas peserta-peserta dan wakil-wakil media yang hadir, setakat dua orang wartawan Kwong Wah Jit Poh, Chew Seng Tun dan Lee Hong Chun, telah dipukul sehingga tercedera dan dipaksa mendapat rawatan di Hospital Besar Pulau Pinang.
4. Peristiwa ini adalah kali kedua wartawan dan orang awam diugut dan diganas oleh perusuh-perusuh UMNO-Perkasa tanpa tindakan keras diambil ke atas mereka oleh polis. Sebelum ini, pada 1 Julai 2011 dua orang wartawan telah dipukul oleh peserta-peserta demonstrasi yang melibatkan ahli-ahli UMNO dan Perkasa di KOMTAR dan selepas itu juga di Jambatan Pulau Pinang. Sehingga sekarang, tiada tindakan yang diambil terhadap mereka yang memukul wartawan itu.
5. Saya ingin menarik perhatian Tan Sri kepada tingkahlaku perusuh-perusuh UMNO-Perkasa pada 26 Februari 2012 itu yang memukul, menghalang dan meludah kereta saya. Peristiwa ini berlaku secara terbuka dan sewenang-wenangnya di hadapan anggota-anggota polis yang hadir berhampiran, tetapi anggota-anggota polis tersebut tidak mengambil sebarang tindakan untuk mengawal keadaan, melindungi saya dan mengambil tindakan ke atas mereka yang menghalang, memukul serta meludah kereta saya. Dari rakaman video yang dilampirkan bolehlah dilihat bahawa anggota-anggota polis berdiam diri dan menonton sahaja apabila orang awam diganas dan apabila kereta saya dihalang, dipukul dan diludah.
6. Saya sebagai Ketua Menteri negeri ini telah dijemput menghadiri perhimpunan tersebut, tetapi saya sendiri telah diancam dan hampir dipukul oleh ahli-ahli kumpulan UMNO-Perkasa yang tersebut. Ahli-ahli UMNO dan Perkasa telah menunjukkan penumbuk terhadap saya dan telah menggunakan carutan perkauman dan kata-kata ancaman seperti “You jaga”. Jika tidak kerana rakyat umum yang melindungi saya, saya percaya bahawa saya sendiri akan diserang. Saya difahamkan bahawa sebelum saya sampai, sudah berlaku kekecohan di mana ada beberapa orang awam diserang dan dipukul kumpulan ahli Perkasa dan UMNO ini. Semua laporan polis yang berkenaan dan rakaman video telah dibuat dan diberikan kepada pihak polis.
7. Adalah jelas bahawa tinkahlaku anggota-anggota polis yang berdiam diri dan tidak menghalang mereka yang mengganas rakyat Pulau Pinang itu tidak boleh diterima. Saya berharap bahawa tindakan yang keras sekarang akan diambil oleh pihak polis ke atas mereka yang bersalah agar peristiwa-peristiwa seperti ini tidak berlaku lagi di Negeri Pulau Pinang.
Perhatian peribadi Tan Sri ke atas perkara ini adalah didahului dengan terima kasih.
Sekian,
LIM GUAN ENG
Ketua Menteri Negeri Pulau Pinang
Credits: Lim Guan Eng
The Prime Minister Should Stop Playing GE
1 year ago
Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Najib Tun Razak has revealed that the BN Government is playing games with the people and is clearly not sincere about reforms by saying that he will grant more power to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) if BN wins a two-thirds majority in the coming General Election. The Prime Minister should stop playing general election games but prove his sincerity about fighting corruption by publicly declaring the assets of cabinet members and amend the Federal Consitution now to reform the MACC as PR would support BN to secure the necessary 2/3 majority. According to news reports yesterday, Najib said that constitutional amendments are required to form an anti-corruption Service Commission with the power to appoint and sack members of the MACC. Currently, MACC officers are appointed via the public services commission. He then added that BN will only carry out the necessary amendments if they win two-thirds in the next GE.
This statement reveals the Prime Minister’s insincerity. If he were truly serious, he could easily have consulted PR on this matter. PR have no hesitation in giving support. There have been many occassions where PR has cast aside political partisanship for the public interest. Clearly there is no need for BN to worry itself about not having a two-thirds majority when PR is willing to engage the BN on this matter and will generally support any effort to strengthen our institutions in the fight against corruption. Malaysians deserve an independent MACC that reports to Parliament and not the Prime Minister. Clearly MCAA is not independent and this has affected its performance badly until Malaysia’s ranking under the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index has dropped from 56 in 2010 to 60 last year year. The need to amend the Federal Constitution only highlights that MACC in its present form is neither independent nor effectively performing its duty to fight corruption.
At the moment, there is nothing to convince Malaysians that the MACC is able to do that. For example, no action is forthcoming on the RM250 million cows for condos scandal involving the family of a Cabinet Minister? How are Malaysians supposed to take the MACC seriously when no action is taken against BN leaders with extraordinary wealth? Lastly, if Najib is truly sincere about reforms and transparency, he must follow in the footsteps of the Penang State Government by commanding all his Ministers and Deputy Ministers to make a public declaration of their assets, just as how the Chief Minister and every EXCO member in Penang has done. Malaysians are not impressed by BN’s election games as the PM has revealed his insincerity about reforms by promising to amend the constitution only if BN wins two-thirds when he can easily do it now by consulting with PR.
Credits: Lim Guan Eng
218 Debate: Debat Chua Soi Lek V.S. Lim Guan Eng LIVE!!!
1 year ago
218 Debate: Debate Between Lim Guan Eng with Chua Soi Lek
Date: 18 Feb 2012
Time: 5pm – 8pm
Venue: Berjaya Time Square Hotel
Topic: “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” Should See A Contest of Ideas, Ideals And Policies That Benefits Democracy And Also All Malaysians Not Just Chinese Alone.
218 Debate Live Photos
This is the biggest and attractive debate that I would be looking forward to watch. There will be live telecast on ASTRO AEC (CH 301) from 5.00pm to 8.00pm This Debate will be open to public and out PM Najib will be there to watch too. Don’t change debate topic, Guan Eng tells Soi Lek. Some 600 people are expected to attend the Malaysian Chinese at the Political Crossroads Conference on Saturday that will feature the debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng. Registration was compulsory because of the limited seats, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) CEO Datuk Michael Yeoh said. ”The form can be downloaded on Asli’s website and a confirmation letter will be given to those who successfully register to enter the hall from 8 to 9.15am. ”However, the confirmation letter does not guarantee admission into the hall after 9.15am as there may be no seats left,” Yeoh said, adding that identification cards were necessary to gain admission. At press time, about 50 seats were left.
Opening Ceremony and now they draw the numbers. Chua Soi Lek get the first number and Lim Guan Eng get the second number. In conclusion is Chua Soi Lek started the Debate.
Live Photos from TV Screen in Berjaya Time Square Hotel
Chua attack DAP on Islamic issues, DAP misled Chinese, assist PAS 2b leader. Listening to the Chua vs Lim debate right now. I’m looking forward to an intelligent debate, but all they do is character bashing.
Pakatan parties not using each other but ready 2b used by the People. msians wish to see debate between@anwaribrahim v @NajibRazak. Who wants to be PM, must debate.#LGEvCSL #fb
Dua tokoh politik masyarakat Cina bersemuka dalam debat yang disiar secara langsung dengan Presiden MCA, Datuk Seri Chua Soi Lek berdepan dengan Setiausaha Agung DAP, Lim Guan Eng.
Tajuk debat tersebut ialah ‘Kaum Cina di persimpangan: Apakah sistem dua parti menjadi sistem dua bangsa?’.
Ketegangan dapat dirasai dalam dewan di Hotel Berjaya, Kuala Lumpur dengan yang dipenuhi 600 hadirin.
Kira-kira 200 orang yang gagal mendapatkan pas masuk pula mengikutinya melalui skrin besar yang dipasang di luar dewan.
4.55PM: Dewan gamat apabila penyokong kedua belah pihak melaungkan nama pedebat masing-masing ketika mereka mengambil tempat di pentas.
5.00pm: Moderator Tan Ah Chai, ketua pegawai eksekutif Dewan Perhimpunan Cina Kuala Lumpur -Selangor, memulakan sesi debat dengan menjelaskan peraturannya.
Bagi ucapan pembukaan, pedebat masing-masing dibenarkan bercakap selama lapan minit.
5.02pm: Kedua-dua pedebat menghampiri podium moderator untuk memilih pedebat pertama berucap. Chua akan berucap dahulu.
5.05pm: Selepas 8 Mac, 2008. DAP mengamalkan politik kebencian, kata Chua.
Beliau menambah DAP telah berubah dan kini bekerjasama dengan PAS, yang mahu melaksanakan sebuah negara teokratik. Beliau berkata, DAP tidak boleh menghalang PAS.
“DAP hanya bercakap besar,” kata Chua, disambut tepukan gemuruh hadirin dari pihak MCA.
Dia menyokong hujahnya dengan menyatakan bahawa Kedah mengamalkan pengasingan gender manakala PAS membantah pawagam di Bangi, Selangor.
5.07pm: DAP suka memberitahu orang Cina bahawa mengundi pembangkang akan meningkatkan taraf hidup, sambil menunjuk bagaimana seorang calon DAP boleh menjadi ketua menteri Pulau Pinang, kata Chua.
Chua berkata DAP telah memberi harapan palsu kepada orang Cina bahawa keadaan sedemikian boleh berlaku di negeri-negeri lain juga.
5:10pm: Chua mengatakan bahawa dalam negara berbilang budaya, rakyat Malaysia tidak boleh menyokong PAS kerana agenda negara Islamnya.
“Siapakah sekutu terbesar PAS?” tanya Chua, dan penyokong MCA menjerit serentak “DAP!”.
5.12pm: kini tiba giliran Guan Eng.
Beliau berterima kasih kepada pihak penganjur debat tersebut tetapi berkata apa yang orang ramai mahu lihat ialah debat antara Perdana Menteri, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak dan Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.
5.14pm: “Kami dalam Pakatan Rakyat tidak mempergunakan satu sama lain. Yang penting bagi kami ialah bagaimana orang ramai menggunakan kami.
“Kami tidak menentang orang Melayu. Kami tidak menentang orang Cina. Kami menentang rasuah,” kata Lim, disambut tepukan gemuruh penyokong Pakatan.
5:16pm: “DAP tidak mengiktiraf ketuanan Melayu. Kami mengiktiraf ketuanan rakyat,” kata Lim.
Lim menambah bahawa Pakatan bersedia untuk melakukan apa yang BN enggan laku, seperti mengisytiharkan aset mereka dan memerangi rasuah.
“Ini adalah apa yang kita panggil sistem dua parti,” kata Lim, diikuti tepukan penyokongnya.
5.20pm: Debat masuk pusingan kedua, dengan moderator mengemukakan soalan: Keputusan pilihan raya lalu menunjukkan bahawa masyarakat berpecah kepada dua pemikiran. Bagaimana anda mengatasi masalah ini?
Chua pertama menjawab dengan berkata DAP tidak akan memberi perkhidmatan di kawasan pilihan raya yang tidak dimenanginya.
Malah, pejabat mereka juga akan hilang, kata Chua, dan para penyokongnya enyahut “ya” secara serentak.
Chua menyimpulkan bahawa sistem dua parti adalah slogan politik semata-mata.
5.25pm: Moderator Tan Ah Chai menerima soalan dari hadirin. Kebanyakan soalan dilihat datang dari kalangan penyokong MCA tetapi Lim melontarkan senyuman.
05:28pm: kontroversi kecil meletus ketika penyokong Pakatan beratur di mikrofon di sebelah tepi dewan mengadu kepada moderator kerana tidak mengambil soalan dari pihak mereka.
Moderator meminta Chua menjawab soalan awal yang ditanya oleh penyokong MCA.
5:36pm: Moderator mengumum membenarkan 10 minit lagi untuk menerima soalan dari hadirin.
Sesi seterusnya melibatkan penceramah mengemukakan soalan kepada satu sama lain. Lim bertanya apa yang pandangan MCA apabila pemimpinnya ditangkap berhubung skandal PKFZ (Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang) dan bukannya pemimpin Umno.
Chua menjawab bahawa Lim mengambil laluan perkauman.
“Dia bertanya mengapa orang Cina ditangkap tetapi tidak orang Melayu?” kata Chua.
Chua berkata berbeza dari yang lain, MCA tidak akan menggunakan demonstrasi jalanan untuk membela seseorang kerana ia percaya bahawa sistem kehakiman adalah adil.
5.40pm: Giliran Chua mengemukakan soalan. Dia ingin tahu sama ada
dasar ekonomi Pakatan boleh membantu Malaysia menjadi sebuah masyarakat yang berpendapatan tinggi.
Lim berkata, dengan mengambil Pulau Pinang sebagai contoh, ia memastikan bahawa kerajaan negeri buat duit.
Antara lain, Lim berkata, ialah urus tadbir berhemah dan ia mengamalkan sistem tender terbuka.
“Ini telah membolehkan kita buat duit setiap tahun, yang diagihkan kembali kepada rakyat,” kata Lim.
Beliau berkata, jika Malaysia benar-benar boleh menangani rasuah, maka lebih banyak wang boleh disimpan, dan Pulau Pinang merupakan contoh utamanya.
5.45pm: Pusingan kedua hadirian mengemukakan soalan, termasuk beberapa soalan dari penyokong Pakatan.
Penyokong Pakatan Rakyat masih tidak berpuas hati kerana kebanyakan soalan datang dari penyokong MCA yang menyerang Lim dengan pelbagai soalan, berhubung dasar PAS dan prestasi Pulau Pinang.
5.55pm: Sekarang giliran Chua menjawab soalan dari hadirin dan membuat penggulungan.
Bagaimanapun, Chua memilih untuk menjawab perkara yang dibangkitkan Lim dalam ucapan penggulungannya. Lim berkata soalan yang perlu ditanya adalah sama ada MCA sanggup berdepan dengan Umno, dengan menegaskan bahawa Presiden MCA, Datuk Ong Tee Keat pernah berkata bahawa MCA ditinggalkan serbuk dari Umno.
Chua menolak kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Ong itu, dengan menegaskan bahawa dia (Ong) tidak relevan kepada MCA.
“Kami turun dia dalam masa kurang daripada setahun (dia berkuasa),” kata Chua, disambut tepukan gemuruh penyokong kedua belah pihak.
6.05pm: Debat tersebut berakhir dengan Chua mengambil inisiatif untuk berjabat tangan Lim. Apabila debat itu selesai, hadirin sekali lagi berluangkan nama pedebat masing-masing.
218 Debate: Lim Guan Eng V.S. Dr.Chua Soi Lek
1 year ago
218 Debate: Debate Between Lim Guan Eng with Chua Soi Lek
Date: 18 Feb 2012
Time: 5pm – 8pm
Venue: Berjaya Time Square Hotel
Topic: “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” Should See A Contest of Ideas, Ideals And Policies That Benefits Democracy And Also All Malaysians Not Just Chinese Alone.
Well, to say personally I am from Penang Site that monitor and see how CM Lim Guan Eng changed Penang into a better place and he able to develop Penang State not only in Economic, but Social Lifestyle, Events, Culture and more to go. So definitely there is no dilemma for me!
This is the biggest and attractive debate that I would be looking forward to watch. There will be live telecast on ASTRO AEC (CH 301) from 5.00pm to 8.00pm This Debate will be open to public and out PM Najib will be there to watch too. Don’t change debate topic, Guan Eng tells Soi Lek. Some 600 people are expected to attend the Malaysian Chinese at the Political Crossroads Conference on Saturday that will feature the debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng. Registration was compulsory because of the limited seats, Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (Asli) CEO Datuk Michael Yeoh said. ”The form can be downloaded on Asli’s website and a confirmation letter will be given to those who successfully register to enter the hall from 8 to 9.15am. ”However, the confirmation letter does not guarantee admission into the hall after 9.15am as there may be no seats left,” Yeoh said, adding that identification cards were necessary to gain admission. At press time, about 50 seats were left.
The DAP’s Lim Guan Eng today accused foe Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek of altering their February 18 debate topic and limiting its scope to the Chinese community’s political future. The DAP secretary-general pointed out the initial topic suggested by organisers, the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute (ASLI) together with the Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research (INSAP) was titled, “Is the two-party system becoming a two-race system?” “It is wrong for Chua to change the topic on the merits and demerits of a two-party system or whether it is becoming a two-race system to one of “Malaysian Chinese-Quo Vadis?” Lim(picture) said in a statement. The MCA president had reportedly said the debate would be on the future of the Chinese community in Malaysian politics. Lim said he accepted the topic as it was in line with the DAP and the Penang state government’s commitment to fight for the rights of all Malaysians, not just one community. “The debate…should see a contest of ideas, ideals and policies that benefits democracy and also all Malaysians not just Chinese alone.
“Only when when there is respect of political rights, socio-economic justice and respect for each other’s human dignity are we Malaysians regardless whether we are Malay, Chinese, Indian, orang Asli, Iban or Kadazan,” added Lim. Lim said the debate between him and Dr Chua will be in Mandarin, and will take place at the Berjaya Times Square Hotel in KL from 5 to 6pm. The debate will be carried live by Astro AEC. Lim also said he was willing to debate in either English or Bahasa Malaysia if given another slot. The debate will happen during one of the sessions during the “Malaysian Chinese at the Political Crossroads” forum, which will be officiated by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak. All parties with Chinese membership, in and out of government, have been invited to speak at the event. Other than politicians, representatives from non-governmental organisations are also slated to speak.
Press Statement by Penang Chief Minister And DAP Secretary-General Lim Guan Eng in Kuala Lumpur on 11.2.2012
The Debate With Chua Soi Lek Is On The Topic “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” Should See A Contest of Ideas, Ideals And Policies That Benefits Democracy And Also All Malaysians Not Just Chinese Alone.
The debate with MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek organised by MCA’s Institute of Strategic Analysis and Policy Research(INSAP) and Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute(ASLI) is not on topic of “The Malaysian Chinese In The Coming General Elections – Quo Vadis?” but on the topic “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System”. The topic of the debate “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” was suggested by the organisers through a letter by ASLI’s CEO Datuk Dr Michael Yeoh on 3 February 2012. I had accepted this topic as this is in line with DAP’s and the Penang state government’s commitment to fight for the rights of all Malaysians just as MCA believes in fighting for only one community. It is wrong for Chua to change the topic on the merits and demerits of a 2-party system or whether it is becoming a 2-race system to one of “Malaysian Chinese-Quo Vadis?”.
MCA is organising the conference on “Malaysian Chinese at Political Crossroads” to be officiated by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak, and several other topics will be explored by various speakers. The organisers had agreed that Chua will I be debating in Mandarin at Berjaya Times Square Hotel in Kuala Lumpur on 5-6pm 18 February 2012 carried live by Astro AEC television station. I wish to stress that I am willing to debate in English or Bahasa Malaysia at another slot similar to my debate in 1991 with Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat where two debates were held, one in Mandarin and the other in English. I have appointed my Political Secretary and Komtar ADUN YB Ng Weik Aik to finalise debate arrangements and details with MCA as well as DAPSY National Chair Rasah MP YB Anthony Loke to handle the logistics of the debate.
The debate with Chua Soi Lek is on the topic “Is the 2-Party System Becoming a 2-Race System” should see a contest of ideas, ideals and policies that benefits democracy and also all Malaysians not just Chinese alone. DAP offers the ideas, ideals and policies implemented in Penang that can be translated nationally of fostering a sense of belonging, a sense of togetherness and a sense of ownership amongst all Malaysians. Only when when there is respect of political rights, socio-economic justice and respect for each other’s human dignity are we Malaysians regardless whether we are Malay, Chinese, Indian, orang Asli, Iban or Kadazan.
Question: But what about you? What you think about it?
