2. Does the bruising blow to Barisan Nasional at the recent election show that you cannot hold one MAN entirely responsible for all the ills?
3. I think they still do. A leader plays a big role especially in Malaysia and the quality of his leadership affects the behaviour and performance of his subordinates whether elected or of the permanent service.
5. For 6 years now there had been practically no development. Malaysian businessmen had to look for jobs abroad. Yet people know that there were contracts given out to chosen people via the Government Linked Companies. Sometimes the PM himself would announce the GLC which had been given the contracts even though the EPU had not determined the specifications. This was the case with the four billion Ringgit Penang bridge. The PM had no respect for procedures.
6. I can list a whole lot of things done by the PM or neglected by the PM which caused a loss of direction for the whole Government. The curved bridge to Singapore was abandoned by the PM supposedly because the people of Johor did not want it. Everyone knows this is not true.
7. Yet for 50 years before this man, the country had grown steadily and the support of the people was solid. Had he been handed a rotten party and Government he would not have won the 2004 Elections with 90 per cent majority.
8. One of the direct results of this one man’s stewardship was to create deep divisions between the races in Malaysia.
9. I did not agree with the way the Perak affair was handled. The BN could easily regain Perak through a vote of non-confidence.
10. The BN was very anxious to regain power in Perak and indeed it had always been anxious to regain power in all the states where it had lost in the past. It did not matter whether the opposition was Malay or Chinese. The BN had strived very hard to get back Kelantan which had always been ruled by Malays.
11. On the other hand when Penang was lost to the Alliance and a Gerakan Chinese Chief Minister was appointed, instead of trying to defeat the opposition Gerakan, the BN invited the Chinese-led Penang Government to join the BN. Even when the Gerakan and MCA did badly in the 1986 elections and UMNO became the majority party, the Chief Minister appointed was still a Gerakan Chinese.
12. Harking back to the past, in the 1955 Elections when the electorate was made up of 82% Malays and most of the constituencies were Malay dominated, UMNO gladly accepted Chinese and Indian candidates for these constituencies and ensured that they won. And all these Chinese and Indian candidates were contesting against Malay candidates from PAS.
13. Following upon that election, the Tunku gave away one million citizenships to the Chinese and Indians without adhering to the usual conditions which effectively reduced the percentage of the Malay voters. He must know that this would prevent Malays from totally dominating Malaysian politics.
14. Yet in the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau elections the BN was accused of wanting to remove a “Chinese” Government in Perak. This is blatantly racist. The BN simply wanted to get back a State ruled by the oppositionIt had nothing to do with wanting to remove a “Chinese Government”. By using this racist argument to win Chinese votes, it is clear that the Pakatan is far from being dedicated to multiracialism.
15. Yes we do need to look closely at the reasons for the defeat of BN in the two constituencies. If we fail to understand the reasons for this defeat we will repeat our mistakes and will be defeated again even in the General Elections.