________________
Media Statement          
by Lim Kit Siang  
___________________

(Parliament, Monday): Will the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi dissolve Parliament to enable the 12th general election to be held this month, although Parliament is in mid-session, rendering six weeks of parliamentary meeting (four of which were on the ongoing debate on the 2008 budget) going to waste?

Almost eight years ago, on November 10, 1999, when it was obvious that the then Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was going to dissolve Parliament when Parliament was in mid-session debating the 2000 Budget, I had issued the following statement:

“There is nothing in law and constitution against the dissolution of Parliament in mid-session. However, it is scandalous and outrageous for the present Parliament to be dissolved in mid-session when there is no constitutional or political crisis, as Mahathir has a rock-like five-sixth parliamentary majority, for this would mean that the four weeks of parliamentary meeting since Oct. 18 and the public expenses incurred would go to waste, with Ministers avoiding accountability for two weeks of debate on the 2,000 budget. ”

“Such contempt for Parliamentary conventions and proprieties and insensitivity to public concerns about abuses of power and waste of public funds – and the dissolution of Parliament wasting four weeks of parliamentary meetings is the most recent example – is the result of political arrogance, irresponsibility and political hegemony of the Barisan Nasional after 42-year uninterrupted two-thirds parliamentary majority.”

If Parliament is dissolved this week or when it is in mid-session, the same critique of arrogance of power, utter contempt of Parliamentary conventions and proprieties and insensitivity to public concerns about waste of public funds would apply with even greater force to Abdullah.

There can be no excuse or redeeming justification for dissolving Parliament in mid-session when there is no constitutional or political crisis arising from the loss or expected loss of parliamentary majority for the government-of-the-day, although Mahathir had mitigating circumstances for his action which is completely absent for Abdullah.

In 1999, Mahathir was fighting for his political life in the wake of the revolt in the Malay heartland as a result of the Anwar Ibrahim reformism campaign, and he was pressed to choose timing for the 10th general election which was most advantageous for his political survival – in utter disregard of constitutional conventions and proprieties.

Is Abdullah fighting for his political life like Mahathir in 1999 when pondering on the timing for the 10th general election eight years ago?

As nobody would suggest that Abdullah is fighting for his political survival in the next general election after winning the unprecedented 91% of parliamentary seats in the last polls, his cynical and opportunistic emulation of one of Mahathir’s worst examples as Prime Minister, will be even more deplorable and inexcusable – as all the debate and expenses incurred in the current parliamentary meeting since August 27 would go down the drain.

If Abdullah could emulate Mahathir’s worst deeds at the very beginning of his premiership what Mahathir only did at the end of his premiership, and when totally without the mitigating though not redeeming circumstances facing Mahahtir, it must set off alarm bells that the real decision-makers of the Abdullah administration are probably the most opportunistic and power-crazy in the 50-year history of the nation - to whom the ends justified the means.

This does not bode well for the future of Malaysia.

(5/11/2007)