MCA's Catch-22 political marriage (Part 1) (Malaysiakini)

A typical and rather unkind public reaction to the MCA leadership today is one of bewilderment upon reading statements on contentious issues like pig farming, hudud law, open tenders, and federal allocations to state governments under Pakatan Rakyat administration.The leaders including president Ong Ka Ting seem to be floating the theory that injecting a little more boldness and ‘oomph’ might strategically help the party to recover credibility and popularity following its severe losses in the March 8 general election. Instead, the electorate appears to be turned off.Property developer YS Lee said such statements ring hollow and reveal an unnatural inclination among lackeys who are playing to the gallery.“In good times, MCA might be seen as arrogant, self-reassuring and a strong supporter of the Umnoputra leadership even though the policies are bad, but not (these days).”Ong’s recent three-part interview with Malaysiakini reflected earnestness in projecting a “multi-racial” MCA and speaking out loud.He is keen to reassure his supporters and perhaps the Chinese community that the MCA is ready to change or has changed. Yet, many ask if the “voices” are genuine or mere tactics to win back trust and respect that the party so often took for granted before.Will Ong be able to pull off a feat that will show him in the portrait of a saviour rather than a leader trying desperately to conceal his party’s true nature - as a partner in a vicious marriage with Umno. Author RK Vasil in his article, ‘Communalism and the Political Process in West Malaysia’, succinctly wrote: “It started as an alliance of two communal organisations, the United Malays National Organisation (Umno) and the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA), both distrustful of each other. The two [...] had nothing in common, except their upper-class leadership.” It was the unexpected success of the joint effort in contesting the Kuala Lumpur municipal elections in February 1952 that saw the foundation of the Alliance being laid. “The MCA, initially, because of its superior organisation and financial power at least secured an equal position with Umno in the Alliance. Also, as long as elections were held at the municipal level only, the MCA was able to assert equality with Umno,” Vasil wrote. “And beginning with this, the MCA got caught in a vicious circle; since the more it gave in to Umno, the more it lost support among the Chinese; and the smaller its base in the Chinese community, the less significant became its bargaining power with Umno in the Alliance.” His words of wisdom have lasted more than five decades, including this observation: “In future, whether it was to make demands on behalf of the Chinese community, it was to be told by the Umno leaders (in the Alliance) ‘ how can you demand all these for the Chinese when you can’t get their support? Deliver the Chinese votes (for the Alliance) and then make demands on their behalf’.” In fact, during the 1964 general election, Umno effectively used this argument to hold MCA demands in check. Strategy that backfiredIn the run-up to the March 8 elections, Umno did not check MCA demands. In fact, the Umno leadership was more than generous, showering financial allocations on Chinese schools.Like newly-weds, leaders of both parties hugged one another and showed affection, all for electioneering. The more disturbing aspects of the MCA-Umno political marriage revolve round the lack of sincerity, mutual respect, fairness and truthfulness, among others. Pacifying an agitated and frustrated collective body of central delegates at the 54th MCA annual assembly last year, Ong soothingly said: “Do not be frustrated as these (grievances voiced by central delegates) are multi-racial problems. It took 250 years for the Americans to reform and Malaysia is only 50 years old. “(Malaysian) Chinese going to the kampong feel safe; likewise, Malays visiting Chinese areas also feel safe. Chinese should not be made to feel like second-class citizens (by any quarter).”“Umno leaders’ controversial statements do not represent the (stand of the) prime minister (Abdullah Badawi) and his deputy (Najib Abdul Razak). Confrontational politics (from MCA with Umno) cannot be effective; closed-door negotiations are more effective.”Defeat comes in many guises. On March 8, the results showed that without Malay electoral support, MCA “mixed” seats fell like pins in a bowling alley.In a catch-22 scenario, it was an important feature of Umno’s strategy to keep MCA weak enough (in terms of popular Chinese support) so as to make it dependent on Umno, but at the same time popular enough for the party to deliver the Chinese vote (for Umno candidates), Vasil argued. In short, both Umno and MCA respectively fell short of their mutual political expectations, paving the way for their arch-rivals in PR to create an unexpected political landscape that is unrivalled in Malaysian history.

Hisham nafi keris punca kurang sokongan (Malaysiakini)

Ketua Pergerakan Pemuda Umno, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein menegaskan bahawa keris tidak mempunyai kaitan dengan sentimen perkauman.
'Perkara ini dibangkitkan hanya bertujuan menakut-nakutkan pihak tertentu tambahan kita berada dalam negara majmuk dan untuk mempengaruhi adalah perkara biasa,'' katanya kepada pemberita semalam.
Sehubungan itu, Utusan Online melaporkan, beliau menyangkal laporan Malaysiakini bahawa naib ketua pergerakan itu mengakui isu keris merupakan salah satu punca kemerosotan sokongan Barisan Nasional (BN) dalam pilihanraya umum lalu.
Tegasnya, berita-berita daripada lamanweb, blog atau khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS) perlu diteliti terlebih dahulu kerana ia boleh menjejaskan perpaduan dan kredibiliti seseorang individu itu.
''Tak mungkin naib ketua saya boleh menyatakan sedemikian kerana dia sentiasa ada bersama-sama dengan saya," katanya selepas merasmikan Mesyuarat Agung PIBG Ke-39 dan Pengisytiharan 110 Tahun Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) Semenyih.
Khairy dilaporkan memberikan komen itu ketika ditemui pemberita di program retreat ahli-ahli parlimen BN di sebuah hotel di Kuala Lumpur semalam.
Bagaimanapun, Khairy dalam laporan itu menolak tanggapan bahawa isu keris menjadi punca utamanya.
Keris Panca Warisan
Sebelum ini, dua akhbar bawah Kumpulan NSTP, yang dikaitkan dengan Khairy, Berita Harian dan New Straits Times menyalahkan ketua Pemuda Umno Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein kerana menghunus keris 'Panca Warisan' selama tiga tahun berturut-turut mulai 2005.Isu keris menjadi polemik besar selepas Astro membuat siaran langsung perhimpunan agung Umno pada 2006 sewaktu 'Panca Warisan' diarak masuk ke dewan dan kemudiannya dihunus dan dikucup oleh Hishammuddin.khairy jamaluddin in umno meeting kissing the keris 040906Beliau menjulang keris bagi menunjukkan perjuangan Pemuda Umno mendaulatkan Agenda Melayu.Bagaimanapun, tindakan Hishammuddin itu dikritik hebat oleh parti-parti komponen dalam Barisan Nasional dan yang paling lantang - Pemuda MCA dan Pemuda Gerakan.Hishammuddin mempertahankan tindakannya itu dengan menyatakan menghunus keris bukan bererti seseorang itu mahu mengancam atau mahu menikam orang lain, ia hanya simbol semata-mata."Malah keris juga tidak boleh dikaitkan dengan satu-satu kaum sahaja," katanya dalam sidang media sempena perhimpunan agung Pemuda MCA pada Ogos 2006.Dalam perhimpunan agung Umno 2007, Hishammuddin sekali lagi menghunus, mengucup dan menjulang Keris Panca Warisan tanpa menghiraukan bantahan keras dan meluas bahawa ia merupakan simbol 'pergaduhan' yang boleh menimbulkan keresahan antara kaum.Malah, Khairy selaku naib ketua pergerakan itu mengisytiharkan selagi ada Pemuda Umno, Keris Panca Warisan akan terus dijulang selama-lamanya.Beliau juga mengingatkan bahawa sesiapa yang tidak berani menghunus dan menjulang Keris Panca Warisan adalah pengkhianat kepada Melayu dan Umno.

Penang Groups unhappy with new Pakatan Councillors (Malaysiakini)

The Penang Pakatan Rakyat government's populist agenda to appoint representatives from non-governmental organisation as councillors in local authorities seems to have backfired.The DAP-led government came under fire from a group of NGOs for not fulfilling its promise to appoint at least 10 municipal councillors from the civil society.By appointing only seven councillors from the NGOs, the group spokesperson BK Ong said the DAP-led government had squandered the public trust by making a blatant mistake."The state government promised 10 but only appointed seven and that too, not on merit."The NGO appointments were dominated by business groups which had caused imbalanced appointment," said Ong.He criticised the Pakatan Rakyat government of continuing the previous Barisan Nasional administration by giving councillor jobs to "boys" rather than giving the posts on merit.Ong blasted the state government for emulating a failed BN method which he claimed would subsequently produce weak councillors and give rise to longkang (drainage) assemblypersons and members of Parliament.Too many business peopleOn Wednesday, the Penang government appointed four councillors from the civil society groups in the Penang Island Municipal Council (MPPP) and three in the Seberang Perai Municipal Council (MPSP).The MPPP four are Women's Centre for Change (WCC) lawyer Lim Kah Cheng, Universiti Sains Malaysia professor Dr Francis Loh Kok Wah, Penang Malay Chamber of Commerce president Rizal Faris Mohideen Abdul Kader and Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce representative Choong Khuat Seng.The three in MPSP are Chinese Chamber's Liu Ting Ling, Indian Chamber of Commerce's R Gunasegaran and Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers' Muhammad Ismail.MPPP has 22 appointed councillors while MPSP has 21.Of the 43 appointed councillors, DAP has 19, PKR 15 and PAS two.Ong lamented over the "over-representation" of businessmen could cause an unbalanced council and conflict of interests since members of chambers were often involved in applying for business operational licences and building permits."This could cause injustice to the laymen," said Ong, speaking on the behalf of the NGOs, including Save Ourselves, Bus Users Group, Malaysian Voters Union, Penang Watch, Mafrel, Suaram, Jim, United Hindu Religious Council, Tanjung Bungah Residential Association and Tanjung Workers Service Centre.In contrast, he said there was lack of representation, or none, from house buyers, residents associations, consumer groups, workers' union and petty traders."Even women were under-represented in appointments," said Ong, suggesting that the representation should have been as high as one per three ratio.Ong also blasted the state government's lack of transparency in the selection process, saying that it mirrored the previous BN government.DAP members left outHe said the state government should have adopted an open selection system such as open invitation, open criteria, open process and open list of candidates even when local government elections could not been held straight away.Ong's open criticism is the last that State Executive Councillor and Penang DAP chairperson Chow Kon Yeow, who is in charge of Local Government portfolio, would want as the state government was already under fire from DAP members on the appointment of councillors from NGOs and "strangers" under the party quota.Disgruntled DAP members have informed Malaysiakini that they had been against the appointment of NGO councillors from the beginning as many of them would not work in the interests of the Pakatan Rakyat state government.Several short messages service (SMS) were already sent out since Wednesday night criticising the state government leaders for overlooking loyal party workers for council appointments.Several assemblypersons have also been singled out by the powerful Makkal Sakti lobbyists in Penang for appointing their "cronies" as councillors at the expense of loyal party members, who had worked hard to secure the party's victory in the recent general election."Several of the appointed councillors from NGO were known BN supporters."Even the Indian councillors appointed under the DAP quota were strangers to DAP," said Makkal Sakti group spokesperson MN Anbalagan.Another Makkal Sakti supporter, R Kumaran, said he learnt that the decision to appoint NGO councillors was made without consulting the party state committee and general members."There is a saying that `loyalty pays.'"But it seems staunch Indian DAP grassroots leaders and members are irrelevant today," he said.

Anwar files RM10mil suit over sexual innuendo (Malaysiakini)

PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim has launched a RM10 million defamation suit against a deputy minister for allegedly insinuating the former as homosexual.Anwar filed the suit through his counsel Sankara Nair (photo) at the Kuala Lumpur High Court this afternoon and cited Deputy Education Minister Dr Wee Ka Siong as the defendant over the latter’s remark of which was made during the Machap by-election campaign in April last year.“The whole false notion of sodomy (against Anwar) has to be put to an end once and for all.”“Anybody who unfairly tries to hold or attempt to resurrect this vile and concocted falsity will have to face action in court,” the lawyer said when contacted later.The suit, filed three days after Anwar’s five-year ban from active politics expired, is seen as his effort and readiness to make a comeback to the forefront of the political scene without the alleged sodomy claim continuing to haunt him. Once heir apparent to ex-premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad, Anwar was sacked in 1998 and subsequently charged and convicted for sodomy and corruption in which he served a total of 15 years in jail for both offences. The sodomy conviction was quashed in 2004 upon appeal to the Federal Court and he was freed. By then, he had already completed his six-year jail sentence for corruption.Till today, Anwar has adamantly claimed that the charges were trumped up as part of a political conspiracy against him, an allegation which Mahathir had denied.Wee: Remark misconstrued The RM10 million suit was based on a Malaysiakini report on April 11 last year quoting Wee’s comment at a ceramah on the eve of the Machap by-election in Malacca.Wee (photo), the Ayer Hitam MP then and MCA Youth secretary-general, had labelled Anwar as someone who “can say one thing then and something else now. For him, front is okay, back is also okay”.He was reportedly to have made the remark while addressing several hundred supporters in a mixture of Mandarin and Hakka, a Chinese dialect.Wee had subsequently told reporters that he was misconstrued and that his remark did not carry the connotation as alleged by Anwar. According to Anwar’s statement of claim today, the suit was a result of Wee’s refusal to retract and apologise over the remark as asked to do so earlier through a letter of demand.The grounds cited by Anwar for his suit included that the remark, among others, that implied him as a homosexual, a pervert and of no moral, unfit to hold political office, dangerous to Malaysian society and engaged in activities which run contrary to Islam.Causing ‘distress, anxiety’ to AnwarThe ex-deputy premier considered the offending words to have disreputed him and cause “irreparable damage to (Anwar’s) character, credit and reputation, both nationally and internationally”.Anwar also claimed to have suffered “considerable distress, anxiety and embarrassment” due to the remark.The PKR leader is asking for RM10 million in compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages and an injunction to refrain Wee from making further similar remark.This is the third such suit filed by Anwar over statements made to allegedly implying his sexual orientations.In January 2006, he filed a RM100 million defamation suit against Mahathir for calling him a ‘sodomiser’ at a human rights conference in 2005. The suit however was quashed in July last year.Anwar has also filed a suit against Umno Youth deputy chief Khairy Jamaluddin in the run-up to the March 8 general election after Khairy was said to have given listeners at a ceramah the impression that Anwar was a homosexual.The RM100 million suit has yet to be heard

ACA reform - again a let-down from PM (Malaysiakini)

For too long, loud cries have reveberated throughout the country for reforms in the Anti Corruption Agency (ACA), particularly for it to be an independent body and not just an arm of the government.
When he became prime minister five years ago, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi vowed to stem the tide of corruption in the country. But it is now clear he has failed the nation and people on that score, the March 8 polls results being the most clear indicator.
Today, Abdullah was a let-down again. Questioned on the issue by the media after an early morning function in Kuala Lumpur, he remained non-committal on the agenda for change in the ACA as demanded by the people.
All he said was that he would decide on a proposal by the ACA for more independence. “I have received the proposal and I would decide on it as soon as possible,” the prime minister told a press conference after officiating the Barisan Nasional MPs retreat. The New Straits Times today reported that ACA director-general Ahmad Said Hamdan and his deputy Abu Kassim Mohamad had submitted the proposal to Abdullah two days ago.According to Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, the agency had proposed for ACA to operate in ways similar to the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). The ICAC is one of the most esteemed anti-corruption watchdog in the region and is often touted by civil society groups and opposition parties as a suitable model for ACA, which currently reports to the Prime Minister’s Department. Overdue election pledgeIn a statement today, Gerakan acting president Dr Koh Tsu Koon welcomed ACA’s move to become more independent. “It will be a concerete mechanism in realising the objectives of the National Integrity Plan launched by the premier in 2004. It will also give greater confidence to the ordinary people when they want to report on corruption cases,” he said. Koh added that an independent ACA would “show the seriousness” of the Barisan Nasional government’s pledges in their 2004 and 2008 election statements. Koh said Gerakan had long lobbied for an independent ACA and would support all measures to combat corruption including strengthening the ACA as an independent body.

Param replies to Dr M’s letter (Sun, with permission)

THE letter of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Speak up, April 8) and in particular the allegations he levelled at me should not go without a response.
The sworn testimony of Shafee Yahya (June 2000)
In the second trial of (Datuk Seri) Anwar Ibrahim, Mahathir was served with a subpoena by the defence. He applied and had the subpoena set aside on April 21, 2000. The trial continued until August 2000. (Former Anti-Corruption Agency director-general Datuk) Shafee Yahya gave his testimony on June 12, 2000. Cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor did not cast any doubt on the truthfulness of Shafee’s testimony. Mahathir knew or ought to have known of that testimony. It was serious in nature. The proceedings were reported in the media the following day. Surely the Public Prosecutor, who was (now Tan Sri) Abdul Gani Patail, could have advised Mahathir to appear in court and refute the testimony under oath if Mahathir thought it was untrue.
Seeing the serious nature of the testimony against him, Mahathir could have volunteered to appear to clear his reputation but he never did. The irresistible inference is that he was afraid of giving sworn testimony in a court of law. There clearly is no justification for him to now complain that he “should at least be heard”. He had every opportunity.
It is learnt from media reports on Wednesday that investigations against Mahathir were carried out following Shafee’s sworn testimony and the papers submitted to the Attorney-General on Feb 15, 2000. This sounds incredible. Shafee’s testimony was recorded by the court only on June 12, 2000. What investigation papers were submitted to the AG in February 2000? In any event as Shafee’s was sworn testimony and in the public domain, was a sworn statement then taken from Mahathir, and if so can that be made public? The Inspector-General of Police is also reported to have said that the then AG, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, decided there was no case. Going by how that same AG in November 2000 cleared the then Chief Justice, Eusoff Chin, of any wrongdoing over the CJ’s holiday trip to New Zealand with (Datuk) V.K. Lingam, the integrity of some of Mohtar’s decisions during the Mahathir era will remain questionable. It is also learnt from Wednesday’s media reports that the ACA’s investigation of the EPU director-general took three years from 1998, was completed and submitted to the AG’s Chambers in 2001 and the file closed for “lack of evidence”. This is puzzling. The then EPU director-general was appointed to the high office of Bank Negara governor in September 1998 and served until April 2000. Does this mean that Malaysia had a governor of the central bank who had an investigation for corruption pending against him throughout his tenure? What happened to the policy Malaysians were always told of that those appointed to high office are always cleared by the Special Branch and other agencies before they are appointed?
There is something very unsettling about the statements of these three high officials of our enforcement agencies as reported in the media.
My ‘hatred’ of Mahathir
This is really amusing. Mahathir obviously ascribes to others his own motives and outlook. It is well known that since about 1985, because of my public criticism of attempts to tamper with fundamental rights in the country, he hashated me. I was told by some ministers of his remarks about me, sometimes even in cabinet meetings. His hatred spilled over into New York and Geneva. On Sept 29, 1999 at the podium of the UN General Assembly in New York, he attacked me personally and the UN for appointing me as a special rapporteur. In Geneva in April 2000 he directed the Malaysian mission there to block my reappointment as special rapporteur by the Commission on Human Rights. That failed. Malaysia appeared a laughing stalk before that commission session.
The UN immunity issue
His remarks that I made libellous statements about a fellow Malaysian and sought immunity as the statements had nothing to do with matters related to my UN work are just outrageous.
It is well documented now since the advisory opinion of the World Court in 1999 that the statements I made and quoted in the Commercial International Litigation journal were within the parameters of my UN mandate on the independence of judges and lawyers. It was a universal mandate from the UN Commission on Human Rights. The immunity from legal process sought was not personal to me but that of the UN. The UN sought the immunity under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations which Malaysia ratified without reservation. The reference to the World Court was made by a resolution of the UN Economic and Social Council. The opinion of the World Court was binding on Malaysia pursuant to the convention.
Four suits were filed against me in 1995 by corporations and two individuals claiming a total sum of RM280 million in damages for defamation. The two individuals are well known to Mahathir, hence his further anger when Malaysia lost in the World Court.
The statements I made about the state of the Malaysian judiciary after the infamous Ayer Molek case and reported in the journal in 1995 are justified in the light of recent developments and proceedings of the Royal Commission on the Lingam video clip. Lingam was one of the individuals who sued me. No court, however, found my statements libellous.
The fear over the want of independence, impartiality and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary during the Eusoff Chin era is best illustrated by developments in four other suits fi led by the same parties for defamation against a large Kuala Lumpur law firm and two of its partners. The suits were over remarks made by the two partners and published in the same article in the International Commercial Litigation. The total amount claimed was RM280 million. The defences of the law firm and partners were handled by professional indemnity insurers whose headquarters were in London. Realising that the defence was constantly losing on interlocutory proceedings in the suits, they no longer had any faith in obtaining justice before our courts. Rather than being saddled with a colossal award in the region of RM280 million after trial, they decided and agreed to settle the four suits for a total of RM17.7 million.
Having recorded the terms before the courts here and paid the agreed sum, the insurers filed proceedings in London before the High Court of England and Wales in 1999 against the publishers to recover the RM17.7 million or part thereof by way of indemnity and/or contribution. In their defence, the publishers pleaded, among others, “that the claimants’ insurers decided to capitulate and pay the original plaintiffs’ exorbitant sums by way of ostensible damages and costs only because they apprehended that the claimants would not have received a fair trial at the hands of Malaysia’s internationally discredited judiciary and legal system”.
By June 2000 Mahathir’s attention was drawn to the conduct of Eusoff Chin and his breach of the Judges’ Code of Ethics, justifying the setting up of a tribunal under article 125 of the Constitution.
He was shown those infamous New Zealand holiday photographs. Yet he refused to take any action, whereas in 1988 he went out of his way to fi nd fl imsy evidence to act against Tun Salleh Abas. His motives were highly questionable.
Set up Royal Commission
In the light of all that I have set out (and there are many other instances) there is justification for Mahathir to be investigated for abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister. As he himself has welcomed such an investigation, I urge the government to seriously consider and set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to look into not just abuse of power during his tenure as prime minister but also how he consolidated that power during his tenure.

A political mystery is finally solved (Star, With permission)

I WOULD like to thank Karpal Singh for solving a mystery which had bothered me over the last five years i.e. ever since I stepped down as Prime Minister.I had been used to the BN and even the Alliance Government before it, being criticised and attacked by DAP MPs even for imaginary misdeeds by them. However, after Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over, even the clear abuses of power and wrong actions by the Government were hardly commented upon by DAP stalwarts like Karpal and Lim Kit Siang.
I was puzzled. I could not believe the suggestion that there was a “pakat” (conspiracy) involving Abdullah and the DAP. But when Karpal advised me to retire with dignity and honour and refrain from criticising the present Prime Minister, I realised that the DAP actually supports Datuk Seri Abdullah and his continued stewardship of this country.But why does the DAP want Abdullah to continue being the PM? Being in the Opposition, the DAP must know that the Chinese community by and large disliked the Government headed by Datuk Seri Abdullah. They had openly spoken of their disenchantment and intention not to vote for Barisan Nasional in the 2008 elections.The mishandling of the Hindraf by Datuk Seri Abdullah had also alienated the Indians. Certainly, the other Opposition parties knew that Malays, including Umno members, were strongly critical of Datuk Seri Abdullah.Obviously, the DAP and other opposition parties stood to gain by the loss of faith in Datuk Seri Abdullah’s leadership by the erstwhile supporters of the BN.And sure enough, they voted massively against the BN in the March 8 General Election. Those who could not bring themselves to vote for the Opposition deliberately spoiled their votes. This explains the unprecedented 300,000 plus spoilt votes in this election.When Karpal urges me to refrain from criticising the present Prime Minister, it must be because he knew that this PM would continue to alienate BN supporters. At the next election, these people could be even more disgusted with the PM that they would actually cause the BN to lose even its majority in Parliament and would no longer form the Federal Government.In other words, the “Pakatan” (The English equivalent to “pakatan” is “conspirators”) would actually win by default and form the Federal Government.This explains why the DAP seems to be very friendly with Datuk Seri Abdullah and why Karpal wants me to stop criticising him. He and his colleagues are against any move to get Datuk Seri Abdullah to step down.Tunku did criticise me and did try to unseat me by supporting Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah. Tun Hussein Onn was unhappy with me over my “Buy British Last” policy but was not well enough to go public, so to speak. So my outbursts are nothing unusual. One can almost say it is in accord with tradition.As to my phobia of lawyers, this idea had been promoted by Opposition lawyers for political reasons. Karpal seems to imply that I really wanted to hang the lawyers. As everyone knows, Shakespeare hanged all the lawyers during his time. Karpal can go on believing that I was not joking. That is his right. But my conscience is clear and a lot of lawyers seem to have a different mind from Karpal.So I would like to thank Karpal for helping to solve a political mystery that had bothered me over the last five years. However, as a citizen who loves this country, I will continue to speak up, more so because the Umno leaders and members fear criticising the leadership. They would be labelled saboteurs and would be punished.