MCA do-or-die at 63 in sarong politics

MCA faces its biggest challenge

By FOONG PEK YEE pekyee@thestar.com.my

EVEN as the 3,000-odd MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) delegates celebrate the party's 63rd anniversary at Wisma MCA  tomorrow, their minds are already on how next year's celebration will fare.

The reason for that is the do-or-die battle awaiting the party in the coming general election, and many see this as the biggest ever challenge faced by the party.

MCA, which won 46 seats in the last election less than half of what it used to win in the past elections will be deemed irrelevant if it slides further.

MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek, who described the current political scenario as totally different from the past, said there should be a sense of “crisis feeling” in the party to take on this challenge.

“We are talking about an Opposition which is more organised and committed and out to replace the Government.

“They will do anything and everything to wrest power,” he said when asked about his message for the delegates at the celebrations.

Of late, Dr Chua has made it a point to unmask DAP, its number one political enemy.

While the two Chinese-based parties have been arch rivals for decades, the war this time around is on a very different platform.

“The DAP today, which is a Pakatan Rakyat ally, is different from the DAP of yesteryears.

“It is not just working together with its Pakatan allies PAS and PKR to win seats but is also set to change the fate of the Malaysian Chinese,” Dr Chua noted.

He stressed that a vote for DAP is a vote for PAS.

To begin with, he said the DAP had always evaded the question of what would happen if Pakatan wrested federal control because DAP knew well that it would not have much say in the coalition.

For instance, he pointed out that DAP, which won 18 of the 31 state seats in Perak in the last election, had supported a PAS leader, Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin, to be the Mentri Besar, adding that PAS only won six seats while PKR won seven.

“DAP is nothing more than a political eunuch to PAS,” Dr Chua said.

He said the DAP had been planting hope in the minds of some 6.5 million Malaysian Chinese that the DAP's feat in Penang which saw its secretary-general Lim Guan Eng's ascension to the Chief Minister's post was possible in other states.

He reminded the Chinese that the Penang feat would not be possible in other states at the moment due to the demography of voters in the country.

Dr Chua also has a message for the delegates tomorrow the need to publicise what the party has done for the people and also what it can continue to do for them.

“I have the party's report card ready,” he said of the various people-oriented programmes implemented by the party since he took over the helm about two years ago.

And perhaps the Chinese saying chuang ye nan, shou ye gen nan (to build an empire is tough, to maintain an empire is even tougher) best sums up what the 63-year-old party is going through now.
The event will be broadcast live from MCA's internet platforms.

Those wishing to view the celebration can browse the MCA website at http://www.mca.org.my; official Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/MCAHQ or Ustream Home at http://www.ustream.tv/user/mcatv. 

 Councillors go easy on Jessie

GEORGE TOWN: Penang municipal councillors have decided not to pursue legal action against Selayang Barisan Nasional coordinator Jessie Ooi for making baseless allegations against the council.

Selangor MCA Beliawanis chief Jessie Ooi >>

Their representative Ong Ah Teong said the councillors had unanimously decided not to pursue the matter and instead focus their time and energy on serving Penangites.

Ooi had made the allegations du-ring the recent televised debate between MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and DAP secretary general Lim Guan Eng.

She had during question time alleged among other things that there were not enough parking lots in Lebuh Pantai and that enforcement personnel had assaulted people while performing their duties.

She had also accused the council of towing away cars at 10.30pm.

The council had clarified that 12 vehicles were towed away for illegal parking since the ruling was implemented in June last year.

Based on the council’s record, no vehicles were towed at 10.30pm and none in Beach Street as alleged by Ooi.

The council had explained there were 829 parking bays on Beach Street and adjoining streets and that its enforcement personnel had not assaulted anyone.

Meanwhile, Ooi in a statement said she regretted the “misunderstanding and confusion” caused by her.

“I admit that during the debate, the time for questions was limited and it was an intense affair resulting in me being emotional and not able to convey my message properly,” she said.

She said the council had the right and responsibility to correct or refute her remarks, but it should not prosecute her.

Ooi said the council’s threat to take legal action against her was an attempt at preventing the rakyat from expressing their views.

Society lacking even after 55 years

MALAYSIA, despite almost 55 years of nation-building, has degenerated into an intolerant and prejudiced society. Progress in education and economy has not made us think liberally and outwardly.

Oddly, we are not isolated from the world at large. We embrace globalisation, multi-racialism and world peace. Yet many of us remain parochial, as though shuttered from the changing times and new challenges.

There are still inward-looking people in our midst who are fond of objecting to a variety of things without justification or reason.

Perhaps it is their inbred attitude to complain, protest and threaten.

For example, even before the 1Care programme is finalised, there are already protests.

Against what?

In their insecure, selfish world, these objectors jump the gun by stirring up a storm in the teacup.

The 1Care programme will be conceptualised and proposed in a year or two.

At the moment, it is mere discussion and brainstorming. So why the hullabaloo?

There is this fear that workers will have their salaries deducted to fund the scheme.

The thinking is that 1Care should be offered free without any contribution by the employers and employees.

Any thought of this nature is only a pipe dream. Not everything is free in this world, not even water, clean air and nature’s abundance of crops.

Before Valentine’s Day, there was also strong objection to its celebration.

Isn’t love natural and universal? It is madness to stifle love. The world needs love, lots of it, to attain peace, harmony, unity and growth.

Politics and religion cannot be allowed to stamp out love, a force that is too powerful to be subdued or crushed. Love has existed long before political parties were created.

Like communism, Nazism and terrorism, the “ism” concepts and practices can do more harm than good.

Extremism is a good example of its negative, sometimes destructive, effects. So is racialism.

We must be on guard against false prophets, pretenders and campaigners with personal agendas.

They are dissenters motivated by self-interest and misguided beliefs. Their aim is to plant the seeds of doubt, suspicion and rebellion.

Fear is a commonly used weapon to create panic and opposition. It becomes a medical and social issue when it leads to phobia.

In some cases, fear triggers national disunity, family discord, social strife and violence.

Malaysia has witnessed many “anti” crusades – anti-dam construction, anti-Lynas, anti-highway building and anti-temple removal.

Sometimes, one wonders whether the resources can be channelled to more meaningful purposes like charity, community development and education advancement.

Another widely-employed strategy is rumour-mongering intended to damage integrity, harmony and unity.

Strangely, many Malaysians accept rumours as the gospel truth, not realising that the wagging tongues strive to spread fear and malice.

Years ago, Tun Abdul Razak once advised: “Don’t listen to rumours.” Not much has changed since then. Many people are still gullible, easily swayed, and outright ignorant.

The rumour mills have expanded from coffee shops, markets and taxi stands to factories, community halls and new townships.

When nothing works, objectors and opponents threaten to institute legal proceedings. The “I will sue you” mentality is quite widespread. It seems to be the final answer to one’s frustrations, grievances and selfish interests.

Bad habits die hard, Negative attitudes linger. We are not an enlightened, liberated society. Do we need to wait for another 55 years to see positive change in our mindset?

ROSELINA, Batu Caves, Selangor.


Related posts:

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!
 
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started before Chua-Lim debate!

Singapore ‘warns’ US on China bashing

Realism as S’pore ‘warns’ US

Behind The Headlines By Bunn Nagara

The city state has begun to adjust to emerging regional realities while pivoting on its pragmatic impulses, as always, while steering a steady course between China and the US.

SINGAPORE’S political positions are nothing if not coolly calculated and calibrated. They are specially so when expressed in formal statements at high-level meetings.

In Foreign Minister K. Shanmugam’s keynote address to the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) gathering in Washington recently, US media reported him as “warning” the US against China-bashing rhetoric.



Words about containing China, particularly in the populist mood of a US election year, would he said cause a “new and intended reality for the region.” It was not the first time Shanmugam had said so, having previously cautioned against the futility of containing a rising China.

However, these statements do mark a shift from previous Singapore policies on the US and China. As a small country overwhelmingly dependent on international trade, finance and therefore regional stability, an unwritten rule for Singapore has long been to avoid making waves while sidling up to the largest kid on the block.

Neither the region’s pecking order nor Singapore’s guiding principles have changed, only the emerging realities on the ground. The wherewithal for continued US pre-eminence has largely flattened out without having yet declined, while China’s stature and substance continue to rise.

The Obama administration has lately pledged to boost the US regional presence, but the extent, duration and consistency of doing so are unclear. China, meanwhile, has no need to risk overstretching itself in East Asia because it is in the region’s centre.

At one level, Singapore’s latest statement confirms a shift from former Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew’s pro-US slant following his retirement last May. For half a century, Lee had championed an alliance with the US over other powers like China, lately much of it because of a rising China.

At a more substantive level, Shanmugam’s statement well indicates Singapore’s new and belated efforts to woo an ascendant China. In seeming different now, Singapore is merely reaffirming its standard pragmatism based on an acute sense of self-preservation.

For the region, Singapore’s new tack may be surprising at first but not unwelcome. It simply expressed the obvious when that needed expressing, even if in doing so it made Singapore look more pro-active than its neighbours in acknowledging China’s burgeoning gravitas.

Singapore’s advice to Washington also came on the eve of Chinese vice-president (and prospective president) Xi Jinping’s state visit. The timing had apparently turned up the volume of Shanmugam’s statement to US lawmakers and their constituents.

Like everyone else, the US had long perceived Singapore as a feisty independent state averse to China’s dominance, following its early struggle against ethnic Chinese leftists and then its break-up with Malaysia, while retaining a largely ethnic Chinese population.

Today, Singapore’s “new look” policy is effectively not only for Washington’s benefit or just to showcase a contemporary Singapore to China. It also serves as an oblique reminder to Beijing that any hostile US rhetoric now would be mere campaign posturing and therefore undeserving of a like reaction.

After all, China is also getting set for a leadership change, a time when new directions may be set in ways likely to appease the populace. Its decade-long leadership is more than twice as enduring as a US presidential term and its policy direction could be several times as significant as the US equivalent.

Still, news reports implying how tiny Singapore had “warned” the world’s sole superpower might have seemed strong, if not strange. It is a measure of Singapore’s new posture that far from denying such reports, Shanmugam proceeded to expand on his comments.

He noted with approval how Chinese media widely reported his comments approvingly. Singapore media were also not shy in lingering over the issue.

The Straits Times noted that “a power transition is under way” in the region. Singapore-based Channel News Asia noted how well Shanmugam’s remarks had played in China.

Nonetheless, many US Netizens were not as hospitable to the comments. Among the more common responses was the defensive argument that US rhetoric against China was free speech and so warranted no warning or censure.

Another common reaction was to despise China and its unfolding development even more. A zero-sum mentality prevailed on US-China relations, aggravated by a pervasive sense of a declining US economy in free fall.

The third common reaction among Americans commenting online was to attack the messenger. Thus Shanmugam was criticised for acknowledging China’s success and daring to warn the US over it.

Singapore’s revised articulation of regional realities does not surprise any serious onlooker in Asia. Its concerns are self-evident, its priorities apparent, and its assessment of the region timely.

A contrast comes with the Philippines, where rival claims with China over offshore territory has come to define their relationship. This amounts to allowing marginal interests to determine larger substantive ones: yet again, pragmatism distinguishes Singapore’s policies from the Philippines’.

Even so, Singapore’s recent assessment of regional realities sums up Asean’s understanding of them. What Washington will make of it, if anything, is anybody’s guess.

Republicans are particularly anxious to parade their conservative values, such as by defending US prerogatives, paramountcy and exceptionalism. This has encouraged emotive responses from Americans “in America’s interest.”

Democrats can only respond defensively by trying to match or pre-empt the Republicans’ US-centric aggressiveness. However much the Obama White House may prefer a more mature and measured response, it must also know that is far less likely to “sell”.

Thus Shanmugam’s counsel to Washington comes full circle. He spoke as he did because of the circumstances of the time, and it is those circumstances that now make him an easy target in the US.

As Americans brace for a presidential election in November, all parties can be just as prickly over any foreign reminders that the US needs to behave better. And it is practically a given that enraged US Netizens disconnected from reality will be given a better hearing in Washington than even the most thoughtful of allies in Asia.

Related posts:

Singapore warns US on anti-China rhetoric!
US Military Strategy to Asia: Poke a Stick In China's Eye 

What is a banker really worth?

Barclays made a serious error over the pay of John Varley, the bank’s former chief executive, who stepped down in 2010 with a ‘goodbye package’ of nearly £4m – it wasn’t enough!

Sir Philip Hampton, RBS chairman, warns that the vilification of Fred Goodwin, RBS's former boss, has morphed into the persecution of his replacement, Stephen Hester. Photo: PA. By Jeff Randall - Telegraph

So says Sir Nigel Rudd, Barclays’ former deputy chairman, who led its remuneration committee.

As Britain’s state-controlled banks, RBS and Lloyds, prepare to unveil results and bonuses later this week, Sir Nigel’s comments in my television documentary (Sky News 7pm, Wednesday) will enrage critics who believe that bankers remain detached from public anger over jackpot salaries.

Sir Nigel, however, is adamant that Mr Varley made a “huge difference” to Barclays during the credit crunch, when rival banks fell apart. By raising funds privately, Barclays was able to survive without a bail-out from UK taxpayers.



“John Varley was underpaid. Because what he did [for Barclays] during the crisis was phenomenal,” Sir Nigel says. In his last year, Mr Varley received a salary of £1.1m, a bonus of £2..2m and a performance cash incentive of £550,000.

Sir Nigel, who is now chairman of BAA, the airports operator, offers advice to ministers wrestling with demands for a pay clampdown while trying to maximise value in the state’s bank shareholdings: “If I was the Prime Minister, I’d ban the use of fairness as a word, because I don’t think you can be fair.”

Sir Philip Hampton, RBS’s current chairman, warns that understandable anger about the banks’ past failings is becoming destructive. In particular, the vilification of Fred Goodwin, RBS’s former boss, has morphed into the persecution of his replacement, Stephen Hester.

“We do lynch mobs better than most, but I think the opprobrium is directed now at the wrong people – the people that are fixing the problems rather than the people that are causing the problems,” Sir Philip says.
He believes the main flaw with bank bonuses is that they were linked to profits which turned out to be “illusory”. The banks did not understand the risks they were embracing, but it took a while for profits to collapse, by which time the bankers had pocketed the cash.

Alistair Darling, who was chancellor when the financial turmoil erupted, says that many highly paid bankers were in denial and remain so. “One or two to this day still don’t realise they did anything wrong, which most people find just flabbergasting.”

In a reference to Mr Goodwin and his top team, Mr Darling says: “They didn’t know what they were doing and we, not them, to a large extent are paying the price for that.”

Mr Goodwin’s old adversary, Sir Peter Burt, who led Bank of Scotland when it was outbid by RBS in a takeover battle for National Westminster in 2000 , doesn’t hide his dislike of the disgraced banker but deplores the nationwide “witch-hunt” against him: “Perhaps Fred should count himself lucky there weren’t any lamp-posts low enough from which to hang him.”

Related posts:

RBS, biggest British stated-owned bank losses of £3.5bn !
Lloyds, Britain’s biggest mortgage lender plunges to £3.5bn loss for 2011 

RBS, biggest British stated-owned bank losses of £3.5bn !

Bailed out: Royal Bank of Scotland is set to announce losses of £3.5bn on Friday. It is worth £26bn - and the Government paid £45.5bn

(Bloomberg) -- Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Britain's biggest government-owned lender, posted a wider full- year loss than analysts estimated after writing down Greek debt and compensating customers who were improperly sold insurance.

The net loss for 2011 was 2 billion pounds ($3.1 billion) compared with 1.1 billion pounds a year earlier, the U.K.'s second-largest bank by assets said in a statement today. That was worse than the 1.1 billion-pound median estimate of 11 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

The government was forced to rescue RBS at the height of the financial crisis, injecting 45.5 billion pounds of taxpayer money into the lender, making it the costliest bailout of any bank. Chief Executive Officer Stephen Hester, 51, has shrunk the bank's assets by more than 600 billion pounds to 1.66 billion pounds and cut more than 35,000 jobs since he took over from Fred Goodwin in 2007. Hester said earlier this month that restructuring RBS was equivalent to defusing "the biggest time bomb in history."

The company took a sovereign-debt impairment of 1.1 billion pounds, writing off Greek government debt as part of a European Union agreement.

RBS's loss would have been narrower if it hadn't had to set aside 950 million pounds to compensate U.K. customers who were improperly sold personal-loan insurance.

RBS's results were also affected by rising borrowing costs as the bank weans itself off low-interest government loans and takes on costlier funding in wholesale markets. The bank opted in December to go the European Central Bank for an emergency 5 billion euro loan as its own costs of borrowing reached an unsustainable level, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The government was forced to rescue RBS at the height of the financial crisis, injecting 45.5 billion pounds of taxpayer money into the lender, making it the costliest bailout of any bank in the world.

--Editors: Keith Campbell, Francis Harris.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105218/RBS-banks-posts-losses-2bn-casino-bankers-enjoy-390m-bonus-pot.html#ixzz1nGtFy7DQ

Mature debates awakening policy makers!

Mature debate the way to go
  ROAMING BEYOND THE FENCE By TUNKU 'ABIDIN MUHRIZ  

Younger, more mature Malaysians have moved on and would like to see more debates, particularly on substantial issues which in the long term can feed the policy makingprocess.

YOUTH and Sports Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Shabery Cheek is not a bad squash player, and I partially attribute my two wins over him to home ground advantage — we were playing at the Royal Sungei Ujong Club which once served as Seremban’s Istana Hinggap — and also to the fact that he was already rather tired, having already played two sets with the Yang di-Pertuan Besar (of which the outcome for the minister was similar).

It is said that he is the most approachable among the Cabinet ministers, and I can see why.

His name is also nearly uttered in the same breath as Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan, Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed, Datuk Shahrir Samad, Khairy Jamaluddin and, of late, Datuk Seri Nazri “Valentine’s Day” Aziz as Umno politicians who have been condemned within their party for being too liberal or independent-minded.

Round one: Dr Chua and Lim speaking to the press after their debate last Saturday.

(Two of these individuals listed mostly the same names when I asked who else in their party broadly agrees with them — even if they don’t enjoy particularly close relationships with one another.)

Among veterans, there’s Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, recently joined by Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Sheikh Fadzir, in being critical of the party.

Back in 2008, as Information Minister, Shabery Cheek had the courage to face Anwar Ibrahim in a televised debate after the latter’s release from prison.

This was touted as the debate of the century, but now similar superlatives are being applied to the one last weekend between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng.



I have been told that the available translations are poor, so I won’t judge the content, but what struck me was the eagerness in presenting this debate as one concerning only ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, rather than a debate to discuss issues pertinent to all Malaysians.

It is as if one’s ethnic background constrains the subject matter — but I am sure people of all ethnic backgrounds have a view about cars being towed in the late evenings.

Still, the fact that the debate happened at all has been widely appreciated. Of course, such debates for the benefit of Malaysian students abroad have been happening for some time.

The recent one between Khairy and Rafizi Ramli in London has been making the rounds online, but I remember such debates taking place when I was an undergraduate there myself.

Some say such debates are a waste of time, because Malaysians are supposedly too immature.

Well, immature politicians of whatever age can wallow in their own ignorance: younger, more mature Malaysians have moved on and we would like to see more debates, and on substantial issues which in the long term can feed the policy making process.

This change in attitude must have something to do with the active culture of debating in our varsities.

Not too long ago I was a judge at one of these debating events, and if these ladies and gentlemen become parliamentarians in the future there may yet be hope for our Dewan Rakyat to return to the civilised, august chamber that it once was.

The cultivation of public speaking begins at a young age.

Last week, I was at SMK Tuanku Muhammad to close a public speaking competition for schools in Kuala Pilah, and the 15-year-old girl who won spoke as eloquently as the local MP.

In my own speech I mentioned that aptitude in both Malay and English is not only crucial to our nation’s future success, but also in understanding our past; from the time of Tuanku Muhammad, English was widely used in government, business and social circles: a far cry from the termination of the English national-type schools, the PPSMI debate and ministry websites that “poke eyes”.

In a school named for Tuanku Muhammad’s niece, Tunku Kurshiah, the wind orchestra was rehearsing for its Konsert DiRaja on Sunday. Starting out as a marching band in the 1970s, the orchestra now routinely wins competitions against other schools.

It had invited me to accompany them on the piano, and it was a privilege to play One Republic’s Apologise and the Blues Gang’s Apo Nak Dikato with an orchestra carrying the first Raja Permaisuri Agong’s name in the presence of many of her family members, including the Yang di-Pertuan Besar and the Tunku Panglima Besar of Kedah (herself a TKCian).

I hope in due course the extraordinary commitment to co-curricular activities can be expanded to squash, too.

Preliminary research suggests that Shabery Cheek is the only person in the Cabinet or among senior Opposition figures (there is still, lamentably, and so close to the rumoured general election, no Shadow Cabinet) who plays this game of strategy, stamina, and flexibility.

> Tunku ’Abidin Muhriz is president of IDEAS.

Related posts/articles:

• Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard 

• Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard (rightways.wordpress.com)

Chinese Outraged by Denial of Nanjing Massacre by Japanese!

The Wall Street,  JOSH CHIN in Hong Kong and YOREE KOH in Tokyo

Chinese Internet users are in an uproar after the mayor of Nagoya told a delegation from Nanjing that he doubted Japanese soldiers had committed atrocities during their World War II occupation of the city.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images >>

 

This is not the first time Takashi Kawamura has raised the thorny subject. Above, Mr. Kawamura spoke at his campaign office in Nagoya on Feb. 6, 2011.

The southern Chinese city of Nanjing suspended contact with Japanese sister city Nagoya on Tuesday night.

The historical scars left by Japan's wartime occupation remain a flash point in relations between the two East Asian powers. Former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's annual visits to the Yasukuni shrine—where Class-A war criminals are enshrined along with the war dead—and revisionist textbooks in Japan that gloss over the country's military adventurism in Asia have led to large, and sometimes violent, protests outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing.



During a meeting with the delegation on Monday, Takashi Kawamura said he thought the murder of vast numbers of civilians by Japanese troops in Nanjing, commonly known as the Nanjing Massacre, "probably never happened."



Mr. Kawamura appeared unbowed by the criticism on Wednesday, reiterating his position at a press event in Tokyo.

"Even since I was a national Diet representative, I have said [repeatedly] there was no [Nanjing] massacre that resulted in murders of several hundred thousands of people," he said, according to Japan's Kyodo news agency. "We need to talk about this publicly without hesitation instead of behind the scenes."

The comments drew heavy fire from Chinese Internet users, who also attacked the Nanjing delegation for being slow to respond to what many described as an unconscionable insult.

"Nanjing should invite Kawamura Takashi to tour the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall," one user wrote on popular Twitter-like microblogging service Sina Weibo, where Mr. Kawamura was among the most-discussed topics on Wednesday.

Others, however, directed their ire at Liu Zhiwei, the head of the Nanjing delegation, after Kyodo reported that Mr. Liu shook hands with Mr. Kawamura and didn't directly challenge his denial of an event often described as Asia's equivalent to the Holocaust.

"All the ghosts of the Nanjing Massacre are going to come knocking on Liu Zhiwei's door," wrote one Weibo user.

The Nanjing city government defended Mr. Liu, telling the state-run Global Times newspaper that the delegation leader "responded to Kawamura's claims" without offering further details.

The Japanese army captured Nanjing on Dec. 13, 1937. Over the next six weeks, Japanese soldiers murdered between 200,000 and 300,000, according to various historical accounts.

Tokyo's own estimate for the number of civilian deaths in Nanjing is far less precise, ranging from as little as 20,000 to 200,000.

Nagoya and Nanjing established a sister city relationship in 1978, six years after Japan and China normalized ties.

The Chinese consulate in Nagoya called the Japanese city office on Tuesday to protest the remarks, saying it "cannot understand the mayor's position." The consulate also said it is unfortunate such comments were made as the two countries mark the 40th anniversary since the neighbors normalized diplomatic relations.

But the consulate said it hopes the matter can be resolved. "Mayor Kawamura's remarks are his own, we wonder whether the Nagoya Municipal Office has its own position," said a consulate spokeswoman on Wednesday.

Tokyo is attempting to stay above the fray for now, with Japan's Foreign Ministry saying that the dispute is an issue that should be settled between the cities.

Mr. Kawamura said his opinion stemmed from his father's trip to Nanjing in 1938. Mr. Kawamura said his father was well-received and reasoned that if such murderous acts occurred the people of Nanjing wouldn't have been so hospitable.

This isn't the first time Mr. Kawamura has raised the thorny subject. In September 2009, he told the Nagoya City Council the number of people China claimed were killed in Nanking was dubious. The Nagoya city's department of international exchange said that more recently, in this past December, the mayor made a passing remark to another visiting group from Nanjing suggesting the mass murder never occurred.
 
Related posts/articles:

Japanese Occupation survivors tell their stories
Nanjing Massacre remembered!  
The Nanjing Massacre « Talesfromthelou's Blog
talesfromthelou.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/the-nanj…
72.233.61.16

Malaysian Sarong Politics: Two-Party-System becoming a Two-Race-System is a question of one or two sarongs!!

A question of one or two sarongs

The following is a commentary in Sin Chew Daily written by its columnist Lim Fang. 

THE debate between Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and Lim Guan Eng deviated from the topic “Chinese at a Crossroads: Is the Two Party System Becoming a Two-Race System?” and turned out to be just a summary of their previous press statements but with a difference — the two leaders were face-to-face.

Considering that this was the first debate in this path of democracy, there were some unavoidable shortcomings. The next debate, either in Malay or English and expected to be held next month, should be able overcome some of these weaknesses.

The last time leaders from these two parties squared off was in 1982 when Lim Kit Siang challenged the then MCA president Tan Sri Lee San Choon to contest in a Chinese majority area to prove which party had the support of the community.

Lee took up the challenge and contested in Seremban in the general election that year. Lim did not contest in the seat but instead the then DAP chairman Dr Chen Man Hin did and lost to Lee.

Thirty years on, this debate has given the new generation of voters a chance to observe the performance of two political foes facing off again. For years, the DAP has had the advantage in the Internet with the MCA being seen there as its whipping boy.



The debate thus gave Dr Chua a chance to prove his “iron man” prowess, as well as use live television to state the stand of the MCA clearly and rebut the DAP.

Some master debaters may question the quality of the debate but this is not a university-type competition as the two were delivering their speech, arguing their political stand and giving a political ceremah. This is different from the political debates in Taiwan.

Lim is good at giving ceramahs but in the debate he avoided the audience’s questions and was embarrassingly tongue-tied when tough questions were thrown at him.

He spent some time reading from his prepared notes and this showed he lacked confidence to expound a convincing argument and concentrated only on voicing out his own political views.

Dr Chua was the first to speak and may not have warmed up at the start, that is until after Lim started attacking him. He then showed his “fighting cock” style and replied sharply.

Without having to read from his notes — a no-no when debating — Dr Chua showed he was confident as well as calm and collected. One could see who was sharp and who was blunt in the debate.

As usual, Dr Chua attacked DAP for not being able to do anything about PAS wanting to implement the Islamic state policy. He said the Rocket badmouthed its opponents just to create an image for itself. He said the DAP was only capable of talking about issues relating to the country, community and people but did not do anything. He accused Lim’s party of misleading the people with lies.

On Lim’s side, he harped on corruption by Barisan Nasional and the MCA’s inability to do anything when Umno shouted out Malay supremacy. Lim also claimed credit for the achievements in Penang under his administration.

When Lim was stressing on Penang’s achievements, he was merely debating as the Penang Chief Minister. Lim forgot that he was also the DAP’s secretary-general. This showed that Lim did not step into the main political arena but confined himself to a regional political stage.

In fact, the debate topic did not apply to the country’s real situation, as the Malays comprise 65% of the population while Chinese make up 24%. Such vast difference in numbers makes it impossible for the two races to go head-on with each other in terms of strength.

The Umno-led Barisan had been practising the two-race system for quite some time to strengthen their position by complementing each other’s strength. It will be no different if Pakatan Rakyat were to come to power, the DAP, which mainly depends on the support of the Chinese community, has to abide by the policies drawn up by PAS and Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

Before this, the DAP used to ridicule the MCA by saying it was hiding inside Umno’s sarong. Today, they dare not repeat such statements because if the Pakatan comes to power, DAP would have one more sarong than the MCA. The conclusion of the debate between the MCA and the DAP is whether there will be one or two sarongs, and which the Chinese community felt more comfortable with.

Video: How to Tie a Sarong Knot? 

How to Tie a Sarong Knot -- powered by ehow

Related posts:
Is the Two-Party-Sytem becoming a Two-Race-System? Online spars started before Chua-Lim debate!
Malaysian Chinese at a Political Crossroads forum; Chua-Lim Debate, all hype but no climax
Malaysian Politics: Chua-Lim Debate Sets New Standard