MCA and Barisan Nasional’s decision not to contest in the Bukit Gelugor parliamentary by-election must rank as the worst political cowardice in the 57-year electoral history of Malaysia.
This worst political cowardice of MCA and Barisan Nasional because of their fear of suffering another ignominious defeat one year after the 13GE results last May, however, camouflages a hidden and unworthy agenda for the by-election – hoping to lull the DAP/Pakatan Rakyat leaders, members, supporters and the voters of Bukit Gelugor into complacency so as to cause the lowest voter turnout in the constituency, and consequently to reduce the humongous majority of 41,778 votes won by Karpal Singh last May. Last year, the voter turnout for Bukit Gelugor was the historic high of 85.35 per cent!
Although MCA and Barisan Naisonal have “chickened” out of contesting in the Bukit Gelugor by-election, the nearly 82,000 voters of Bukit Gelugor should not succumb to the opiate of MCA and BN that the Bukit Gelugor by-election is unexciting and irrelevant when in fact, it and the Teluk Intan by-election are two important milestones in the post-13GE political struggle to restore justice, freedom, democracy and good governance in Malaysia.
I will be developing the case about the great importance of the two by-elections, Bukit Gelugor and Teluk Intan, in the coming weeks.
For today, I want to ask the MCA President Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai ten questions:
No. 1 – how could the MCA “eat its own words” in the less than 24 hours when on Saturday, both Liew and the MCA Secretary-General Ong Ka Chuan declared that the MCA would not be contesting Bukit Gelugor as MCA wanted to “fully focus on the hudud issue to protect the federal constitution…to stop the PAS Private Member’s Bill from being tabled in Parliament on June 9”, and on Sunday, Ong came out with a statement to clarify the MCA’s”real reason” for staying out of the Bukit Gelugor, without any mention of the hudud issue and admitting that a year after 13GE, MCA sees no positive signs that will allow it to win in the by-election.
No. 2 – isn’t it true that the MCA’s earlier reason for staying out of the Bukit Gelugor by-election – to focus on the hudud issue – has deeply offended the UMNO “Big Brother”, which forced the MCA leadership to “flip-flop” within 24 hours on its reason for not contesting in Bukit Gelugor, as Liow faced the risks of losing the three MCA Ministers and five Deputy Ministers which Najib has dangled before him if he disregarded UMNO sensitivities?
No. 3 – if Liow and the MCA leaders cannot and dare not speak out fully and truly why they are staying out of the Bukit Gelugor by-election, i.e. over the hudud issue, who can expect MCA leaders or Ministers to have the courage of conviction to stand by political principles whether in Cabinet or Government?
No. 4 – isn’t this “flip-flop” of MCA reason why it is not contesting Bukit Gelugor by-election the best and latest proof that the MCA is not sincere or truthful about wanting to focus on the hudud issue?
No. 5 – isn’t it true that DAP and PAS have not changed their respective stands on hudud and it is UMNO, MCA as well as Gerakan, which had changed their stand on hudud while putting up a great sham and pretence to hide their policy change on hudud?
No. 6 – Is Liow as the new MCA President (and this goes for the new Gerakan leadership) prepared to apologise for the 13-year betrayal of MCA (and Gerakan) when the MCA President (and Gerakan President) were among the first to fully endorse the unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional announcement by the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad on Sept. 29, 2001 (the “929 Declaration”) that Malaysia is an Islamic State?
No. 7 – why did Liow and the MCA leadership failed to repudiate the announcement by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak on April 24 that the Barisan Nasional Federal Government had never rejected hudud – which was a clear violation of the Merdeka Constitution of 1957 and Malaysian Constitution 1963 and the stand not only of the first three Prime Ministers, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein, but also the struggles of the founders of MCA and MIC like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin and Tun V.T. Sambanthan?
No. 8 – why Liow and the MCA leadership had failed to requisition for an emergency meeting of the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council to reaffirm the erstwhile Barisan Nasional policy that its Federal Government rejects hudud, as UMNO would be easily outvoted on this issue, as at least eleven if not 12 of the 13 BN component parties would have rejected such a policy change – even if UMNO is solidly behind the Barisan Nasional policy change.
No. 9 – Arising from Question No. 8, is Liow and the new MCA leadership now conceding that the Barisan Nasional has long ceased to operate on the principle of consensus, where the disagreement of one of the 13 component parties in BN would be sufficient to block any new decision, policy change or new policy formulation and that UMNO can unilaterally and arbitrarily act and decide in the name of MCA and the entire Barisan Nasional?
No. 10 – Is Liow and the MCA leadership prepared to take an uncompromising stand to defend the consensus principle of Barisan Nasional where UMNO cannot unilaterally decide in the name of the other 12 component parties , that unless Najib retracts his unilateral, arbitrary and unconstitutional announcement on April 24 that the Barisan Nasional Federal Government had never rejected hudud, Liow and the MCA leadership would reject the offer of three MCA Ministers and five Deputy Ministers and would not return to the Barisan Nasional Cabinet and Government?