by Chung Hosanna
He told us a lot. He told us nothing. Chua Soi Lek had a lot of facts but not much impact during Debate 2.0 organised by Asian Strategic Leadership Institute (ASLI) in 8th July.
Although it was Lim’s private life that had come under scrutiny the week before, it was Chua who was on the defensive during this follow-up debate after Round 1 held in February.
Chua seemed lethargic and at times agitated when he sought to one-up the ebullient Lim. As quickly as Lim could rattle off achievements by the Penang state government, Chua disputed them and accused DAP of falling short on action.
At one point, Chua suggested that Lim should build a kindergarten in Penang. Lim, the Chief Minister, retorted “come on, DAP is a political party to determine the future of Malaysia, not to form kindergartens!”
Chua’s tone throughout the two-hour verbal combat was one of derision. He adopted the stance of an elder man giving a younger man a history lesson.
Chua claimed that MCA fought for citizenship for non-bumiputeras, allowing Lim and his father to become citizens. The MCA President also said MCA’s insistence on integration instead of assimilation policies was the reason why “the Chief Minister is not called Sukarno Lim”.
That MCA should claim credit for non-bumis citizenship is disturbing on two levels. Firstly, citizenship was part of the ‘social contract’ agreed upon by society at large. While no-one disputes MCA’s role in history, it should not gleefully claim credit for a national social policy.
Secondly, if MCA has to resort to resurrecting past glories to remain relevant, what has it been doing for the past 55 years? After being part of the ruling government for half a century, does MCA not have any new successes to show? Perhaps its time has past, and it is time to relegate its glorious past to the history books.
When answering a question about his role as Penang Port Commission Chairman, Chua called Lim “ignorant” and launched into a mini-lecture ending with a condescending “understand?”
Lim however refused to be bullied by his opponent’s barely-disguised contempt. The DAP secretary-general started out strong and simply would not be bested despite the older Chua throwing his weight and experience around.
In a tactical move, Lim chose to make full use of a rare opportunity to address the nation via the mass media. The delayed telecast of the debate was screened on Astro while three radio stations offered live broadcast.
MCA’s Three Fears
During a debate, the winding up speech is a crucial time for the debator to leave a final impression with the audience. During Debate 2.0, Chua Soi Lek chose to spend his precious 15 minute winding-up speech refuting DAP’s ‘ubah’ slogan.
Why would he do that, instead of concentrating on what MCA has to offer the public in terms of politics?
Perhaps the uncharacteristic behavior of the MCA President is a sign that in the changing political climate, it is the (opposition) DAP that leads the charge and drives the discourse. Whereas, MCA is put on the defensive and has to clamour to be heard by an increasingly sceptical public.
MCA fears three things. Firstly, it fears UMNO, which has become more of its “master” than coalition partner in recent years. Despite being the second largest political party in Peninsular, MCA’s dwindling popularity has severely hampered its clout within the ruling coalition and credibility among the electorate.
In its worst showing ever during the 2008 General Election, the party only managed to win 15 of the 40 seats it contested. MCA is currently down to a pathetic tally of only four ministers and seven deputy ministers. This is a far cry from its founding days where it was on equal footing with UMNO.
Secondly, MCA fears DAP and PR’s increasing public acceptance. MCA’s public campaign to demonise PR is a double-edged sword as its leaders self-contradict in their over-eager fear mongering.
Chua Soi Lek accused the opposition of “doom and gloom” talk, while MCA continues to use scare tactics to frighten Malaysians about hudud.
Chua accuses DAP of being a camouflage for Chinese chauvinism, but he also taunts DAP for its supposed “failure to stand up for non-Muslims”. There is something inescapably ironic about the president of a race-based political party branding the multi-racial DAP as a chauvinist party.
Thirdly and more crucially, the Malaysian Chinese Association is afraid of ‘ubah’. The ailing party faces difficulty shrugging off the perception among many urban voters that it has not done enough, especially among the middle class who are screaming out loud.
The sandwiched group feel the lack of government aid in dealing with the rising cost of living. Without the large financial mountains of the well-connected to depend on, yet unable to qualify for subsidies for the poor, the middle class feel trapped in limbo. Many blame the government for their predicament, naturally much displeasure falls on MCA’s shoulders too.
Beyond its historical role, the party is struggling for relevance in a shifting landscape with an increasingly unpredictable and savvy crop of voters. There is much to fear as the power is theirs to lose.
In 1992, Bill Clinton’s 1992 challenged George Bush for the US presidency. Clinton’s message was a simple one:
After twelve years of Republican leadership resulting in social stagnation and economic recession, the American people are ready for change. The choice in 1992 is clear: change or more of the same.
Lim’s message during the debate was similarly built around the message of change. Perhaps, in the 13th General Election, the people of Malaysia will vote for change.
Five lies Chua told during the debate:
- Chua alleged that the Penang state government did not build low cost houses.
Besides the 11,000 low cost houses built by the state-owned Penang Development Corporation (PDC), the state government has also allocated RM500million to build affordable homes in the state. - Chua said that PR cannot agree on a common party symbol
The PR coalition submitted its application to be registered as a coalition to the Registrar of Societies in 2009 but was rejected, PR filed a fresh application in March 2011 which was once again turned down. - Chua said DAP never had an Indian state chairman
Karpal Singh was DAP Penang Chairman, P. Patto was DAP Perak Chairman, Manoharan was DAP Selangor Chairman and George John was DAP Kedah Chairman. The late Ahmad Nor was DAP Selangor Chairman and Ahmad Ton was DAP Johor Chairman. - Chua accused the PR state governments of never giving land to build Chinese schools
Selangor had approved land for five Chinese schools in the past four years, which were: SJK(C) Hin Hua in Klang; SJK(C) Bandar Serendah and SJK(C) Gurney in Hulu Selangor; SJK(C) Balakong, and SJK(C) Connaught (2) in Hulu Langat - Chua said that PAS has never openly endorsed Anwar as the PR candidate for Prime Minister
All three PR parties have publicly stated that Anwar Ibrahim will be the prime minister candidate for Pakatan Rakyat.
Five questions for MCA:
- If the housing minister has admitted to national leakage and corruption amounting to RM26 billion, what is the government doing about this?
- Did MCA reject the donation of RM30million by Koon Yew Yin to UTAR in Kampar to build hostels for students, in order to allow it to continue its profitable rental business?
- Did TAR college come about because many deserving students were unable to enter university under the previous university quota system and MCA failed to solve this issue?
- Why has Chua Soi Lek as Chairman of Penang Port Commission refused to implement the RM353billion dredging of Penang Port and instead chose to privatise the port to Tan Sri Syed Mokhtar?
- Why is MCA against the idea of a national debate between the prime minister Najib Razak and the opposition prime minister candidate, Anwar Ibrahim to discuss policies that will determine the future of the nation? -the Rocket.
