Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| Posted: 19 Sep 2013 01:44 PM PDT  Mohsin Abdullah, Fz.com LET'S take a step further following Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir's announcement that he will be contesting the Umno vice-presidency. And that "step" is to say he's going to win. And at who's expense? More of that in a while. Question at hand: Do you agree Mukhriz will be voted in as one of the Umno vice-presidents? Political pundits seem to say "yes". Considering the big influence his father still wields among Umno leaders and members alike. With a father who happens to be Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in the picture, Tun Daim Zainuddin, another powerful and still influential figure in Umno can be counted on to lend support. Not forgetting the many pro-Mahathir bloggers, influential among Umno in their own ways. And some Umno watchers believe deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin and his supporters will throw their lot behind Mukhriz as well. With such a support base, how can Mukhriz not win? When I first wrote some weeks ago on a big push for Mukhriz to contest the vice-president's post, there were several posers which he needed to look into before taking the plunge. (See Mukhriz Mahathir: Will he? Won't he?) Surely he has taken everything into account and is confident of his chances of making it. And of course there's Dad who he can and surely must have consulted. As for Dad, well his recent "no holds barred" interview with Umno paper Utusan Malaysia and his recent blog post said it all. That he wants his son to be elected VP. Well not directly. Still political commentators read Mahathir's comments as that. Comments like "Umno is dying of old age and needs renewal, new blood, new leaders". That Umno will be shunned by the younger generation if they see leaders who are supposed to take over from "old" leaders are themselves "old". And the man who was Umno president for 22 years also said the party must rid itself of corrupt leaders who "do not bat an eyelid to even sell out their own bangsa". Mahathir did not name names of course. But two candidates eyeing the Umno vice-presidency this time – Tan Sri Isa Samad and Datuk Seri Ali Rustam – both had been found guilty previously by the party of "money politics" in Umno elections. Mahathir ended his blog posting by calling on all in Umno to "return to the Umno struggle, cast aside personal interest and choose the young and reject the old". That, to many an Umno watcher, is crystal clear as to what Mahathir is driving at. But in the same blog Mahathir said he was aware of "certain quarters" accusing him of having a particular agenda – that he wanted to continue his legacy thorough his son. Wrote Mahathir: "Perhaps by coincidence this can happen. But if because of this accusation I do not act for the good of Umno, then this will mean I am only concerned of my image and not my responsibility to the party. And if I want to help my son, I should have done that when I was prime minister." But to an Umno insider who was involved in the party GE13 machinery, it's well and good that new blood is "infused" into Umno . "But not necessarily Mukhriz. KJ is new blood. Accept the fact KJ won on merit," said the insider. KJ is of course youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin and the victory the Umno insider was referring to was the contest for the Umno youth chief's post in 2009. Mukhriz came in third – behind Khairy and former Selangor MB Datuk Seri Khir Toyo. But then, that win was achieved when Khairy's father-in-law, Datuk Seri (now Tun) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was PM, although anti-Abdullah sentiment in Umno then (fanned by none other Mahathir himself) was high following BN's dismal performance in the 2008 election. But that's another story. Mahathir's support aside, Mukhriz has got the endorsement and full backing of Kedah Umno to contest the VP's post. To that, the party insider had this to say: "Do not use artificial support from Kedah divisional heads as reason (to contest)." "Artificial support?" I asked. The insider's response was quick. "You ask division heads (should I contest?). Do you think they dare to say Datuk Menteri Besar, don't contest?" Mukhriz, as we know, is Kedah menteri besar. Still the insider "reluctantly" admitted that Muhkriz stands a good chance of winning. Already at least one blogger aligned to Mahathir is talking about a "succession plan" with some political commentators "predicting" Mukhriz could very well be deputy president by 2014. "It's ok to contest but do not link it to a succession plan. This will weaken (Datuk Seri) Najib (Razak)," said the Umno insider – obviously the "succession plan" had riled him in the first place. Now to the poser mentioned earlier. At whose expense will it be should Mukhriz grab one of the VP slots? Read more: http://www.fz.com/content/mohsin-abdullah-what-tun-wants-tun-gets#ixzz2fPAwAy65 |
| Posted: 19 Sep 2013 09:54 AM PDT
Our history teachers used to tell us, we must never judge historical events and individuals with our existing standards. Such events and individuals were by-products under a specific historical environment, and any evaluation of these events and people must be made under the condition such historical backgrounds are conscientiously taken into consideration. Lim Mun Fah, Sin Chew Over the past two days I have been thinking very hard over one question: How should I present my commentaries on historical events and historical personalities? No doubt the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) has become history now. So has its secretary-general Chin Peng. But even with the demise of the CPM, controversies over its historical status and its former leader remain rife. I understand this issue is not only controversial, but can be extremely sensitive. While we call ourselves a democratic country, the moment any issue pertaining to communism, race and religion is mentioned, we will find ourselves surrounded by an intangible wall, a truly impenetrable restricted zone. And because of that, it is hard for historical records and consensus to achieve full objectivity, justice and rationality. Historians tell us the most fundamental prerequisites for writing a history book or researching history is to be objective, fair and just. However, people holding very different political views may have very different interpretations of justice and objectivity. Our history teachers used to tell us, we must never judge historical events and individuals with our existing standards. Such events and individuals were by-products under a specific historical environment, and any evaluation of these events and people must be made under the condition such historical backgrounds are conscientiously taken into consideration. Since there is complexity with historical events and people, it is therefore essential that our data must be comprehensive and non-selective lest we deviate from the criteria of objectivity and fairness. What our teachers told us are merely principles; in reality, which among the countless illustrations of historical events and individuals actually meet such benchmarks? Take the CPM case for instance, the official stance is very straightforward, that CPM started the chaos and war and killed many security personnel and civilians. But some others see CPM as fighting for the country's independence and sovereignty, firstly against the Japanese imperial army, then assisting in flushing out the colonial government to complete the country's nation-building process. Such polarized views do carry some elements of truth on either side, but also parts which have been severely distorted. But because of their differing stands, they have made two sets of very contradictory conclusions on CPM's positive impact on the country's historical developments, or impediment and destruction it has wrought on our social progress. In a similar manner, historical records on Chin Peng have been authored differentially based on the commentators' political stand and perception. Those thinking positively of him will exalt him as a national hero while those denying him call him a despicable traitor. Such a phenomenon has been attributed to the monopoly by the people commissioned to author history books, as they only pen down the history along their thinking line, making simple but dogmatic conclusions on historical events and personalities. Because of that, historical events have become so ambiguous and facts are either buried beneath the ruins of history or intentionally distorted. In a similar manner, historical personalities have also been completely overhauled; either sanctified as saints or demonised as unforgivable villains. Such lopsided historical accounts are omnipresent among our history textbooks and other history books available in the market.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan