Is Abdullah toying with the idea of a massive clampdown on dissent like the 1987 Operation Lalang which Mahathir launched six years after being Prime Minister – when Abdullah will only be marking the third anniversary of his premiership in two weeks’ time?

________________
Media Statement
by Lim Kit Siang  
___________________

(Parliament, Tuesday) :  Is Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  toying with the idea of a massive clampdown on dissent  like  the 1987 Operation Lalang which former premier Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad launched six years after becoming  Prime Minister – when Abdullah  will only be marking  the third anniversary of his premiership in two weeks’ time?

Perceptive Malaysians find Abdullah’s comments on his return at the Royal Malaysian Air Force Base in Subang  last evening after performing the umrah in Mecca.most ominous, when he as good as warned of  repressive actions against “”trouble-makers”, particularly with his  parting shot: "If people do good once, we can do so 10 times over. Once you do something bad, be careful ...'.

The national news agency, Bernama, immediately put up the Prime Minister’s threatening comments as its lead story, “Don't Try To Cause Trouble, Says PM”, and when I saw it in Geneva attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly, my first reaction was that the country was going back to the pre-Operation Lalang days before Oct. 27, 1987, which could not be good for Abdullah’s premiership, Malaysia’s nation-building which is to celebrate 50^th National Day celebrations next year or to enhance Malaysia’s international competitiveness to reverse the tide  to attract investments.

When a few  hours later, Bernama removed this lead story and it was also not to be found in the list of online Bernama reports (although it continued to be accessible), I interpreted it as “good sense having prevailed” and that there was a belated  realization that threats of repressive actions and  clampdowns cannot be an acceptable answer to demands for greater openness, accountability, transparency and integrity in line with what Abdullah had himself pledged and promised on becoming the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.
 

I hope that my interpretation was right, that after giving way briefly to the temptation of responding in a repressive manner to demands for greater openness, accountability, transparency and integrity, “good sense” had prevailed that this was not the right response – but for how long will such “good sense” prevail in the Abdullah premiership unless it is prepared to undertake a paradigm shift to fully embrace  openness, accountability,  transparency and integrity and all that these  imply? Otherwise, the Abdullah premiership may end up as  “Mahathirism without Mahathir”:

Former Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Musa Hitam, is worried and has advised all parties to stop having a public discourse on the racial equity share in the national economy, saying it could turn into something emotional.

Suggesting that the National Economic Action Council (NEAC) would be the useful forum to discuss the issue of corporate equity ownership, Musa referred to the “so many predators” in the “current mood in the country”: who are ”ready to grab the issue and irrationalise them and exploit them for their own political ends".

Musa may be referring to his former political boss, but Malaysians,;political leaders and citizens alike, must ponder why after nearly half-a-century of nationhood and 36 years after the promulgation of the New Economic Policy, questions and debate as to what are the facts about corporate equity ownership and distribution should become so sensitive and  inflammable that they must be classified as the new “unmentionable” subject in public discourse?

I call on all Malaysians to exercise restraint and responsibility in the public discourse on the methodology and data on ethnic corporate equity ownership and distribution and not to allow it  to degenerate into insensitive  race-baiting or any form of “predatory” communal politics.

In 1970, public discourse and debate on  the facts about corporate equity ownership and distribution was not regarded as “sensitive” as to be banned from the public domain. If in 2006, questions  as to the actual facts about corporate equity ownership and distribution are  to be banned from public discourse because it has become very sensitive, is Malaysia going forwards or backwards towards a “first class mentality”, knowledge-based economy, information society, good governance concepts of openness, accountability, transparency and integrity  and a united multi-racial Malaysian nation?

Both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have said that there is no problem in making public the methodology and data for the official computation of ethnic corporate equity ownership and distribution by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU).

This should be the case for Malaysia will become an international laughing stock if official methodology and data  continue to be  shrouded in secrecy after over  three decades raising questions about their credibility and legitimacy.

What the Cabinet should do tomorrow is to honour the public statements by  the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to make public the methodology and data for the EPU computation of  ethnic corporate equity ownership and distribution, giving real meaning to the pledges  of the Abdullah premiership on openness, accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

(17/10/2006)