phuachukang
加人: 2005-07-20
回应: 311
|
the winds of change
For those who are interested blackout news like these:-
A friend of my friend is my friend. An enemy of my enemy is my friend. A friend of my enemy is my enemy. An enemy of my friend is my enemy. This may not necessarily apply in real life, but in real-politics this has to be one’s philosophy in life. And this friend-enemy relationship can change accordingly, depending on the realignment of friendships or shifting of political alliances.
Does this therefore make politicians hypocrites or inconsistent? Hypocrisy is a word not found in a politician’s dictionary. Instead, one must use the word Machiavellian. And Machiavellian politicians are good or realistic politicians. These are successful politicians and politicians who have the right attitude towards politics and are therefore bound to go far. Machiavellian politicians always know how to capitalise on and use situations and people for furthering their political careers. Machiavellian politicians are not frightened of a crisis. A crisis is an opportunity. As Malays would say, ‘dalam kesempitan ada kesempatan’ (there is an opportunity in a crisis). Well, the English say: you have to break the shell to fry an egg. And change requires breaking many egg shells, so sometimes the winds of change can be mistaken for a crisis to the uninitiated.
Oh, and in case you did not know, Khairy Jamaluddin majored in Political Science and his thesis was on Machiavellian Politics. I suppose now you can understand the creature better.
There are of course other philosophies in politics. For example, good politicians must always back the winner. Politicians flock to winners like a blue-arse fly flocks to shit. Losers must be avoided like the plague. And good politicians never swim near sinking politicians. Sinking politicians would drag you down like the Titanic going to its watery grave. As soon as you see the iceberg you must abandon ship before the hull is torn open. If you wait for the ship to hit the iceberg before you abandon ship, you might find that there are no lifeboats left. And, just like in the Titanic disaster, the first class passengers get places in the lifeboats first. Those in economy class have to jump ship and take their chances in the shark-infested waters. And if the sharks don’t get you, the cold will, and you will eventually freeze to death like many of yesterday’s politicians whose political careers have now been frozen stiff.
Does this give you the impression that the world of politics is a dog-eats-dog world? Of course it is! A politician’s life is a dog’s life and this is no place for pussies (the feline type, that is, not the.....well, you know). And it is a dog’s world in more ways than one. For example, a politician must wag his of her tail when he or she hears the master’s footsteps around the corner. And, when the master is within sight, the political dog must pant with his or her tongue hanging out and be ready to lick the feet of he who walks through the corridors of power. Oh, and one very important thing about good politicians: just like a faithful dog, one must never bite the hand that feeds one. Only mad dogs do this and mad dogs would be quickly put to sleep.
Sigh....a politician’s life is undoubtedly a dog’s life. And that is exactly why I chose never to become a politician. Not that I probably would not have made a good politician, mind you, if I really put my heart into it. It is just that I am a straight-talker who shoots from the hip. This would make me a bad politician -- so I would have to change my style. And I am not about to do that. I love the way I am even though more people hate me than love me because of this.
But who cares if others hate me as long as the person most important to me loves me -- and that would be my wife. Well, she did marry me because of what I am. And those who knew me back in the 1960s say I have not changed much -- still gila (crazy). Okay, I may have more width and less hair than I had in my teen years; all of us have; but other than that I am exactly the same Raja Petra that I was 40 years ago when I was beginning to embark on my journey through life.
One-time Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad recently admitted he has just discovered that all those who supported him when he was walking through the corridors of power were not sincere. They did not support him because they agreed with him, argued Mahathir. They supported him because he was the Prime Minister. Now that he is no longer the Prime Minister, they no longer support him. Instead, they now support current Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
That’s politics for you and Mahathir should not be surprised about this state of affairs.
Do all these ‘supporters’ therefore agree with what Abdullah is doing? Of course not! What has agreeing with someone got to do with supporting him? You support him because he walks through the corridors of power, not because you agree with him. He can be a nut for all you care -- and all those who support Abdullah agree that he is a nut, but they support him nevertheless because he walks through the corridors of power. But once you see an iceberg looming over the horizon, then you must quickly ‘un-support’ him, rush for your lifejacket, and aim for the nearest lifeboat so that you can give yourself a safe distance from the sinking ‘ship’. Hmm, and is this ‘iceberg’ in the form of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad? Well, time will tell.
Anyway, I have said this before and I will say it again. I always go against established norms; even what is considered ‘norm’ in politics. And that, if I can be allowed to repeat myself, makes me a bad politician -- so I do not aspire to be one. I do not agree with someone because I support him or her. I can be opposed to someone, yet agree with him or her -- as long as what he or she says and does makes sense. And I can support someone, yet disagree with him or her if that someone says or does something I do not subscribe to. And with that backdrop, maybe we can talk about what Mahathir revealed in the recent dialogue jointly organised between Malaysia Today and various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) on 24 June 2006 at the Kelab Century Paradise.
What is Mahathir’s beef and do I agree with what he said? Okay, maybe I do not need to go into too much detail on what he said because what transpired can be viewed in the various reports together with the video recording of the 24 June event. Let us instead analyse the spirit behind what he said.
For those with short memories, Mahathir’s beef is on Proton, the APs, the Crooked Bridge, and many more. As I said, the details of what he said have already been bandied about and are already public knowledge. So I will not waste everyone’s time repeating what is already known. We need to talk about what is not public knowledge. We need to talk about the untold story. There is more than meets the eye and, as usual, things are not always what they appear to be.
That is what Malaysia Today is all about anyway. Malaysia Today talks about the untold stories, the behind the scenes goings-on, the hidden agenda, the secret conspiracies, that which is removed from public view.
First of all, Mahathir handpicked Abdullah as his successor. Abdullah did not have to fight for the Umno Presidency. Mahathir could have left the post vacant and allow Umno to decide who it wants as its new president. Abdullah would then have to contest for the post of Umno President against various other personalities who also wanted the job; Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, Najib Tun Razak, etc. included. In an open contest, Abdullah would not have become the Umno President or Prime Minister of Malaysia and Mahathir knew this.
In fact, Abdullah was not Mahathir’s first choice of successor, Najib was. However, against his better judgement, he appointed Abdullah instead of Najib -- and made up for by-passing Najib by pressuring Abdullah to appoint the former as the Deputy Prime Minister. Even before Abdullah could warm his seat, he had already shown ‘resistance’ (in the Najib issue) and Mahathir should have read the writings on the wall then. But he did not. He thought Abdullah was just ‘slow’ and that there was no other reason other than this.
Quite perturbed by Abdullah’s apparent ‘slowness’, Mahathir took it upon himself to announce Najib’s appointment as Deputy Prime Minister in a press conference held at a dinner thrown in his (Mahathir’s) honour. Even Abdullah was taken aback by Mahathir’s spontaneous announcement. Abdullah never saw it coming and he was caught totally off-guard. He stumbled and almost fell as he rushed out of the room to instruct his aides to inform the press about a total media blackout on the announcement. But he could not ‘reverse’ the announcement when it was leaked to the alternative media and carried on the Internet. The following day; almost 24 hours later; Abdullah was forced to make the ‘official’ announcement of Najib’s appointment. And you could say that Najib owes his job to the Internet.
Abdullah was outraged. He had planned for another man for the job and had in fact already promised that man the job. Abdullah just needed time to make the official announcement of his choice for deputy, which was not going to be Najib. But Mahathir had stolen the thunder from him and he was now over a barrel. Never mind though, Mahathir may have got his way as far as the number two was concerned. But Abdullah was going to get his revenge. And that would be by dismantling the Grand Old Man’s legacy and making him look stupid.
Mahathir should have realised, then, that Abdullah was not about to honour all his pledges in spite of him being perceived as an ulamak (religious scholar). Maybe Mahathir thought it was safer putting your trust in an ulamak compared to someone like Najib -- which is why he chose Abdullah over Najib as his successor. But Mahathir thought wrong. After the Najib fiasco, Abdullah started dismantling, one-by-one, all the other ‘legacies’ of the Grand Old Man that he had promised to uphold. The Crooked Bridge, MV Augusta, Tengku Mahaleel, etc, all went out the window.
Okay, we may argue that it is Abdullah’s prerogative as prime minister to run the country the way he sees fit. He is not obligated to continue Mahathir’s policies. After all, as soon as he became Prime Minister, Mahathir even pushed the clock forward by half an hour to make Malaysians get out of bed and go to work half an hour earlier. Abdullah can always turn the clock back half an hour and allow us an extra half hour of sleep and there is nothing Mahathir can do about it. (Maybe then Abdullah will not fall asleep at meetings like he does now).
The issue, as far as Mahathir is concerned, is not WHAT Abdullah did, but HOW and WHY he did all this. Abdullah’s actions or what he did are not the issue. Mahathir can live with that. And that is certainly the Prime Minister’s prerogative. It is the hidden agenda behind all these actions and the manner in which everything was executed which is Mahathir’s bone of contention.
Take the Crooked Bridge as one example. It had commenced construction while Mahathir was still Prime Minister. But as soon as he handed the reins over to Abdullah, they stopped work on the bridge and went back to the negotiation table. The reason given for going back to talk to Singapore was that Malaysia wanted a full or straight bridge instead of the half or crooked bridge. As icing on the cake, Malaysia offered to supply sand to Singapore and threw in more Singapore Air Force (SAF) flights over Malaysian air space as well.
Now, we must get one thing very clear. According to Mahathir, Singapore did not demand all this. It was Malaysia that pandai-pandai (‘smart aleck’) offered these two goodies as a package for the full or straight bridge. But Singapore would not allow RMAF planes more flights over Singapore air space. That is not included in the package. It is a one-way deal.
Who, Mahathir asked, is going to benefit from the supply of sand? It is not the government that will benefit but certain individuals. And who are these individuals who are going to benefit from this multi-billion Ringgit sand supply contracts? Are these persons, as has been the talk-of-the-town in Johor, connected to Abdullah’s son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin, plus other key Umno personalities? Is the rumour about Syed Hamid Albar’s family also being involved in the supply of sand also true? If it is, then this is a serious conflict of interest considering he headed the negotiations with Singapore -- and Anwar Ibrahim went to jail for six years for much less.
Yes, questions, questions and yet more questions. And not only Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is demanding answers, but so is Malaysia Today -- and, I am sure, many of Malaysia Today’s readers as well. But the answers are not forthcoming. Abdullah, as Musa Hitam said, is maintaining an ‘elegant silence’. I would rather quote Tun Ghazali Shafie instead who said, “The silence is deafening.”
Okay, so somebody found out about the ‘under-the-table’ sand deal and the shit hit the fan. Three days later, Abdullah announced that the bridge was being aborted only three weeks after announcing in Parliament that the bridge would be built by hook or by crook (no pun intended). And what was the reason for aborting the bridge? Well, because Singapore was demanding the supply of sand and more SAF flights over Malaysian air space before they would consent to the full or straight bridge.
First, Singapore never demanded all this. It was Malaysia that offered them. Second, this ‘package’ was only for the full or straight bridge, not for the half or Crooked Bridge. Even if Singapore really did demand the supply of sand and more SAF flights over Malaysian air space (which they did not), and if Malaysia does not agree to these terms (which Malaysia does because it was Malaysia’s idea), then just cancel the full or straight bridge and go back to the original plan of the half or Crooked Bridge. The half or Crooked Bridge does not involve the supply of sand or consenting to more SAF flights over Malaysian air space. Why cancel the bridge altogether, especially since work had already started? You can just cancel the full bridge and revert to the half bridge and we would be back to square one.
Yes, something does not make sense here. There is certainly something terribly wrong. And this is what Mahathir is demanding that the government explain. And Malaysia Today too wants an explanation as we feel the people should be told why the government is spending more than a billion Ringgit to abort the bridge whereas the cost to actually build it would be lower.
The issue of whether we support Mahathir or do not support him is not what matters. That is not important. Mahathir has asked for an explanation on an issue that we too want explained. So we stand behind Mahathir in demanding answers.
By:
Raja Petra Kamarudin 投稿于 2006-06-27 21:29:21 |
