Recommended that MCA folks read this too!
Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Lim Kit Siang have been fighting each other for half a century already. Both their political careers began in earnest during the same era.
In 1964, Dr M became a first-time MP when he won the Kota Star Selatan (Kedah) Parliamentary seat. In 1966, Kit Siang was DAP national organizing secretary.
Below are excerpts of Dr M’s speech to Parliament on 26 May 1965 (three months prior to Singapore’s expulsion) and his subsequent exchanges with opposition MPs Tan Chee Khoon and S. P. Seenivasagam.
Hansard @ http://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-26051965.pdf
26 May 1965
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad: “They know very well that racialism can lead to inter-racial conflagration which will only end with the disintegration of Malaysia.”
“It is a peculiarity of this country that those who openly accept the fact of racial division are the people less prone to racialist politics. The Alliance is based on racialism where its party structure is concerned, but its decisions are the results of mutual ‘give-and-take’ amongst its constituents and no longer represents a purely racialist stand-point.
“On the other hand, the so-called non-communal parties are the most communal and racialist in their attitudes. Basically, they are pure Chinese chauvinists, or they derive inspirations from a common dislike for the Malays.
“Let us take the Socialist Front. Ostensibly this is not a communal party. This is a party based on class ideology where the people of all races who subscribe to socialist thinking are supposed to be equal within the party. But does the party fight for the establishment of socialist ideas in Malaysia? No.
“What does the Socialist Front, and in particular the Labour Party of Malaya, demand? Not socialised medicine , not nationalisation, but Chinese should be the official language of Malaysia, that Malays should be deprived of their so-called privileges, that the Chinese Nanyang University should he recognised, that the Chinese Schools should be accorded the same treatment as the national schools, that we should favour Communist China, that we should be friendly with China’s good friend, Indonesia. The whole appeal, Mr Speaker, Sir, is to Chinese chauvinism, to Chinese communal sentiments.
“At times this will escalate to blatant anti-Malay offensive. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, the Malays were pictured to the Chinese as a privileged super-race who gets everything, leaving nothing at all for the Chinese. The result of all this is that the Socialist Front of today is almost purely a Chinese organisation, led and supported by .. .
Dr Tan Chee Khoon: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification – Does the Honourable Member for Kota Star Selatan realise that almost all the top Malay leaders of the Socialist Front are behind bars?
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad: Mr Speaker, Sir, I realise that, but I know that there are stooges in every party. (Laughter). May I continue, Mr Speaker, Sir?
Mr Speaker: Yes.
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad: Mr Speaker, Sir, the result of all this is that the Socialist Front is almost and I repeat almost, not completely purely a Chinese organisation, led and supported by people whose only reason for associating with . .
Interruption by the Honorable Member for Menglembu, S. P. Seenivasagam.
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad: “Sir, the result of all this is that the Socialist Front of today is almost purely a Chinese organisation, led and supported by people whose only reason for coming together is their desire to propagate a “Chinese uber-Alles” ideology as against a Malaysian nationalism of the so-called communal Alliance Party.
“It is significant that at the Socialist Front demonstration in Kuala Lumpur in February this year, almost all the demonstrators were school children — school boys and school girls still in the uniforms of Chinese schools. It is significant that the posters, banners and placards were in Chinese. It is also significant that the swearing at the Policemen during that demonstration was also in Chinese.”
“The Socialist Front claims to be non-communal, but in actual practice it is extremely communal and bases its appeal entirely on Chinese communalism. Anything and everything that appeals to purely Chinese sentiments is exploited by the Socialist Front to gain support.
“But, Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Socialist Front is communal, the P.A.P. is even more so. It is more sophisticated and more discerning and more able to use the non-communal label. However, behind the veneer of non-communalism is the most rabid form of communalism yet practised in Malaysia.
“The P.A.P. has challenged anyone who can prove that it is communal. […] The differences between the P.A.P. and the Socialist Front is not the degree of socialism that each professes but that the Socialist Front is merely pro-Chinese and communist orientated, while the P .A.P. is pro-Chinese, communist orientated , and positively anti- Malay. […]
“When the. P.A.P. first made overtures to the Central Government on the common market and merger, the UMNO was never attacked. The Malayan Chinese Association was all the time the target of the People’s Action Party. The United Malay National Organisation could do no wrong. Indeed, the leaders have never failed to say out aloud that they have nothing against the UMNO or the Malays, but on the other hand the M.C.A. was pictured to the Malays as a weak, corrupt Kuomintang orientated Chinese chauvinist party.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it was pointed out again and again to the UMNO how much better it would be for the Alliance to get rid of this Chinese racialist party and accept the P.A.P. in its place. The P.A.P., it was emphasised, was non-racial, well organised, strong and Malaysian in outlook.
“There is no doubt that a few UMNO stalwarts must have wavered, but the top leaders repeatedly insisted in public that the UMNO will stand by the M.C.A., come what may. How wise this was, was shown by the result of the election of 1964. The M.C.A. was far from weak. That it was not rabidly communal was shown by the fact that one candidate in a predominantly Chinese constituency was a Malay, who won with a thumping majority over a Chinese. He was jokingly called the only Malay M.C.A. candidate.
“Now, Sir, having failed to woo the Malays with its so called non-communal anti-M.C.A. policy, the P.A.P. has now switched tactics. The M.C.A. must be destroyed. To do this, the P.A.P. decided to expose its true self. It has revealed its Chinese communalist stand and it has played up every communal issue. Worse, it has decided to reveal that it is not merely pro-Chinese but anti-Malay as well.” […]
Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad: “When it is examined carefully, it will be found that the P.A.P. has retained a hold mainly over matters which will affect the Chinese and their chauvinist ideas. National language is one of those things which tend to create disaffection among China-orientated Chinese. Playing to chauvinist ideas , the P.A.P. retained multi-lingualism, while paying lip-service to the national language. The target date for accepting the National language is ignored by the P.A.P.” […]
“In some police stations, Chinese is the official language, and statements are taken in Chinese. The impression this creates among non-Singapore Malaysians is that they are in China rather than in Malaysia. […]
“Indeed, at election time, the whole machinery of the P.A.P. is concentrated in utilising Chinese racialist sentiments to the full. […]
But, Sir, Mr Lee [Kuan Yew] pointed out that the Chinese of Sabah form only 25 per cent of the population. Being a minority the Chinese could never be the Government, or the dominant race. It is only by putting up a non-communal front as the P.A.P. is doing that the Chinese can manipulate the other races into accepting Chinese leaders. It follows, therefore, that if the Chinese want Chinese leaders to run this country, they must organise like the P.A.P. talk non-communal and facilitate Chinese communalism.”
*** *** ***
The identical political vocabulary of PAP-1965 and the current DAP is spooky, huh?
“Ultra of ultras”
Below is what Lim Kit Siang really thinks of Dr Mahathir Mohamad:
Angels vs Devils
Kit Siang will proceed with suing Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
See also response by a follower to Kit Siang’s tweet.
A Tokong fan (screenshot below) tagged Kit Siang in his tweet about the “Racist Devil Dr M” as compared to the DAP Angel YAB @cmlimguaneng”.
Below: Parody logo featured in Sakmongkol’s blog.
Lim Kit Siang’s press statement today:
- Informed the public that Segambut caretaker MP Lim Lip Eng had lodged a police report this morning against Dr M on allegations of sedition and criminal defamation
- Rebuts Dr M and insists that “I (LKS) had never uttered such scurrilous lies and falsehoods in my 47 years in politics”
- Instead claims that LKS upholds “political beliefs fostering greater inter-racial co-operation to build a united Malaysian nation”
- LKS had “given Mahathir two opportunities to withdraw and apologise for his chauvinistic and seditious blog”
- But “the former Prime Minister had been totally unmoved and unrepentant”
Since Kit Siang has in turn made very serious allegations against the ex-premier, Dr M can actually counter sue.
Nonetheless it must be noted that the Tun has never displayed the same litigation happy tendency as the “I sue, sue, sue … you see what I do to you” Lim family.
Priming Dapsters to expect the “dirtiest election”
Kit Siang expects the BN to “make the 13th General Elections the dirtiest in the the nation’s history”.
Some Pakatan politicians like to “simply accuse”.
Who is guilty of defamation?
Fahmi Fadzil, who is Nurul Izzah’s political secretary, had made world headlines in June 2011 with his unusual punishment imposed by the court.
Fahmi had to tweet his apology to the plaintiff 100 times after being found guilty of defamation.
And The Star glamourizes him (see screenshot of the paper’s report above). The Star‘s act of glamourizing Fahmi is nothing to be surprised at as in Fahmi’s Twitter buddy-buddy network are paper’s favourite Twitter personalities — @hannahyeoh and @bongkersz.
Pakatan’s Gen Y
The young DAP leaders are currently even more of chameleons than the PAP described by Dr Mahathir in 1965.
When Dr M said in the mid-60s that “those who openly accept the fact of racial division are the people less prone to racialist politics”, he was most correct. And it still holds true.
Dr M also said: “On the other hand, the so-called non-communal parties are the most communal and racialist in their attitudes.”
Even the PAP methods pointed out by Dr M in 1965 are being assiduously recycled today. “It [replace PAP with DAP] is more sophisticated and more discerning and more able to use the non-communal label. However, behind the veneer of non-communalism is the most rabid form of communalism yet practised in Malaysia.”
Replace the PAP of 1965 with the present day DAP again, and you get the following:
“When the DAP first made overtures to the Malay polity post-tsunami 2008, PAS was never attacked. The MCA was all the time the target of the DAP. PAS could do no wrong. Indeed, the DAP leaders have never failed to say out aloud that they have nothing against the Muslims or the Malays, but on the other hand the MCA was pictured to the Malays as a weak, corrupt, Chinese chauvinist party.”
The redux – how much the new DAP is like the old PAP – is practically eerie!
As well as the DAP regurgitating the same PAP wool-over-the-eyes: In 1965, it was “Chinese … form only 25 percent of the population. Being a minority, the Chinese could never be the Government or the dominant race.”
Today the plaintive refrain becomes “Christians form only 9 percent of the population. Being a minority, the Christians could never be able to make Malaysia a Christian state, or Christianity the dominant religion.
And look how the DAP 2.0 is rehashing the same political rhetoric, blame game and appeal to raw emotions. The Evangelista Bintang Tiga have got the SOP and the script down pat.
In 1965, race politics was predominant. For 2013, the politics have expanded to include the religious element too.