Haris owes an explanation deriving from Azmin corruption investigation issue
I have 3 important questions for Haris Ibrahim.
A few days ago on June 7, Haris Ibrahim did a posting headlined, ‘I said speak up, not talk c@#k!‘
In it, he describes Azmin Ali as “one over whom hangs the suspicion of past corrupt practices”. Haris wants Azmin and Anwar Ibrahim “to lay those suspicions unambiguously to rest”.
Azmin was at that time (1995) private secretary to Anwar. Haris demands that the PKR duo dispel any suggestion that the then deputy prime minister might have “interfered with due process in using his position to procure the closure of this corruption investigation”.
In his posting ‘I’ll shut up if they speak up‘ on the same issue a week prior (on June 1), Haris wrote also that he agreed with Raja Petra Kamarudin – the whistleblower with regard to the Anti-Corruption Agency files on Azmin – that Anything But Umno (ABU) must now be expanded to Anything But Corruption (ABC).
“Misleading the voters”?
One of Haris’s readers (screenshot above) posed some questions in The People’s Parliament that “beg for answer”.
The questions by ‘potblack’ are:
(1) “Tell me were you [Haris] honestly were you aware of this issue prior to the 12th G.E?”
(2) “RPK and you were busy campaigning for P.R then. Were both of you misleading us the voters into believing P.R was the better choice compared to B.N?”
Haris has not as yet replied to potblack’s queries.
Haris has not as yet received any response from Azmin. Or from Anwar either.
Their silence does not inspire confidence in the opposition.
The ABU guarantee
And yet this is what Pakatan is offering the electorate. Anwar as the prime-minister in waiting. Azmin as the deputy president of one of the triumvirate parties that ABU is telling us are the better choice compared to BN.
And Haris as one of the most active campaigners to propel Pakatan to power.
The ABU movement initiated by Haris is premised on [his words] working “to rid ourselves of this most foul and corrupt regime that now sits in Putrajaya”.
Secondly, ABU wants us to believe that the substitutes to Umno must be “men and women of unquestionable integrity”.
Hannah Yeoh, as one example, is “excellent candidate material” according to Haris.
Convince us, please
With Haris’ recent challenges to Azmin, it is useful to revisit Anas Zubedy’s reservations, expressed in ‘Why I disagree with ABU’ (17 Jan 2012).
Haris blogged, ‘Why I disagree with Anas Zubedy‘:
“anyone who sincerely has the interests and welfare of the rakyat at heart knows full well that until the cancerous Umno / BN is removed from Putrajaya, we, as a nation, are well on the way to becoming a banana republic.”
“Anas opines that not all in Umno are bad. What if the Umno candidate is better than the opposition? Who should we vote for? Respectfully, Anas overlooks that today Umno has become a whorehouse and a sanctuary for robbers and thieves.”
(bold emphasis mine)
Haris further wrote:
“Yes, Anas, not all the whores, robbers and thieves in Umno are bad. But whores, robbers and thieves, nonetheless.
“Anas seeks to caution that we should not be hasty in trying to bring about change in this country of ours lest, as he put it, ‘we throw the baby out with the bathwater’.
“I do not know about the baby going out with the bathwater, but what I do know is we want Umno / BN out lock, stock and the bloody, rotten barrel.”
To revert to Anas’ initial poser: “But what if the Umno candidate fighting for the same seat is a better candidate, who should we vote?”
Question 1 for Haris:
Between an Umno candidate and Azmin Ali, who does Haris advise his ABU followers to vote for?
*** *** ***
Anas responds on Jan 19 with ‘A note to Haris Ibrahim‘.
The same day, Haris pens his ‘Dear Anas‘ reply where he said:
“We plainly do not see eye to eye, and the business of consigning Umno and BN into the cesspool where they properly belong does not permit me the luxury of a protracted discourse with you on our points of contentions.
“History will judge one of us to be wrong.”
Haris then closes the discussion by saying:
“As I share the views of many that you are in some way tied with the powers that be, you will understand if I do not reciprocate and wish you well in your endeavours.
“Please do not take it personally. It is an ABU thing.”
While Anas may or may not “take it personally”, ABU supporters do take these things very personally.
e.g. one of Haris’ regular commenter (screenshot below) who opined:
“… Anas would be pontificating over the overall goodness of the Nazi party while thinking by his efforts he would improve the way the Gestapo operated”.
While the preceeding covers Anas’ disagreement with ABU and Haris’ disagreement with Anas, I’d next like to touch on one area where Haris and I don’t see eye to eye.
Haris against ‘communalism’
Last week (June 3), I’d blogged:
“Someone who was in the MCLM inner circles had rung me up at around the time that the Integrity “vetting” process was being carried out by the movement on Third Force candidates. The first name that came to my mind and which I proposed to MCLM (via my telephone caller) was P. Uthayakumar.”
That telephone caller was Sharifuddin A. Latif. He is today the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement president following Haris’ resignation of the post on Jan 2.
Sharifuddin had sought some suggestions from me on the Barisan Rakyat Independent Candidate Initiative carried out around July 2011.
As mentioned earlier, I had proposed Uthaya, someone who has never been Haris’ cup of tea as Haris believes that Uthaya is a “communalist”.
Haris had posted ‘If the communalist coat fits…‘ on 24 May 2010, and explaining the term ‘communalist’ as meaning “one who is more interested in one’s own minority or ethnic group than in society as a whole”.
Thus Uthaya is not a candidate who would receive the MCLM stamp of approval as vetted by the Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia (SABM) parameters and tested with the Integrity Meter invented by Haris.
Uthaya has often been vilified by the SABM-ers as “racist” due to Hindraf’s focus on Hindu Tamils.
Recently a group calling itself Indraf was set up under the auspices of DAP led by the party deputy secretary-general P. Ramasamy and DAP member V. Ganabatirao (formerly of Hindraf and ex-ISA detainee).
Indraf stands for Indian Rights Action Force. (Hindraf is the Hindu Rights Action Force)
If Hindraf is unacceptable to Bangsa Malaysia, isn’t its copycat in name Indraf – that was established last month by Pakatan – not similarly unacceptable? Or is Pakatan permitted to change the rules as they go along?
The photo below shows the Indraf inception ceremony. Seen in the photo are DAP’s Ramasamy, Guan Eng, Anwar, Kit Siang, Nurul Izzah and Ronnie Liu.
Hindraf had previously been censured by Haris as ‘communalist’ – i.e. displaying “strong allegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to society as a whole”.
Question 2 for Haris:
What does Haris say about Nurul Izzah speaking at the Indraf launch since he has previously praised her as a lovable politician who takes a strong stand against “race politics”?
*** *** ***
I’m willing to explain to anyone who asks why I wish for Uthaya to be sent to Parliament.
Haris must be called upon to do the same, i.e. share his rationale for proclaiming that Hannah Yeoh is “excellent candidate material”.
He should do this because his ABU campaign has taken it upon itself to sort out for Malaysian voters who are goats (baaaad people) and who are the Anointed Lambs of God.
Furthermore his postings on Anas Zubedy had prompted People’s Parliament blog readers to assail Anas’ integrity.
For example, someone using the pseudonym ‘Daba Standards’ commented that Anas is “a potential katak candidate”, John Hardick wrote, “It is ang pow season and I can understand where Anas Zubedy is going”, and Kee Thuan Chye called Anas “a charlatan” as well as a “pretender [who] needs to be exposed, or he will cause much damage to the country …”.
In light of the Azmin Ali developments, Haris should now explain the workings of his Integrity Meter and why Anas fared so badly by its gauge merely for anticipating an Azmin-type sticky scenario.
Question 3 for Haris:
Please enlighten us on how Hannah Yeoh got top marks in your Integrity test.
I would like Haris to elaborate on his claim about “her principled position on important national issues and her ability to articulate them well”, with a focus on Hannah’s support for Anwar’s Sept 16 attempt to procure the crossover of BN MPs.
How does Hannah’s endorsement of the Sept 16 frog-fishing square with Haris’s present ABC — Anything But Corruption? Pray tell.