Shahrir Samad
When it was announced that Pakatan Rakyat had chosen Datuk Zaid Ibrahim over Dr. Halili Rahmat as its candidate for the Hulu Selangor by-election, my gut feeling was that DAP’s will had prevailed. It was a choice of articulateness in Parliament rather than serving the voters of Hulu Selangor. The neurosurgeon, a local boy made good, was known only to the PKR grassroots but was not up to mark for the more issue-oriented Lim Kit Siang and his colleagues. Zaid fitted well with the DAP with his more worldly views. Dr. Halili would have been just another MP focused on serving his constituents rather than the legislator-type preferred by DAP.
DAP’s representatives in the Selangor state government had effectively serviced the Chinese electorate in Hulu Selangor and as the election results showed even the current MCA state assemblyman was already diminished in influence in his own constituency. DAP was confident that with the Chinese votes in hand, all Zaid had to do was deliver a good part of the Malay electorate. DAP did not however count on two possibilities. One was that the PKR-led state government had ignored to solve the local Malay issues, particularly that of the former Felda settlers of Sg. Buaya, in the two years after the general elections. Secondly, DAP did not realise that by emphasising on Zaid’s role in Parliament, the challenge was more directly aimed at Datuk Seri Najib’s leadership and would invite the Prime Minister’s own participation in the campaign. After all it was Zaid who openly asked the Yang DiPertuan Agong to block Najib’s assumption of premiership.
On the first matter, Tan Sri Khaled Ibrahim was eager to show off his corporate skills and had done so in handling Talam’s debts with state-owned companies. However that caused the first significant resignation of a PKR national party official, that of its Treasurer, Sallehudin Hashim, who now seems to preside at every subsequent resignation of PKR leaders. If Tan Sri Khaled were to apply his corporate skills to the less glamourous issue of the former Felda settlers while the late PKR MP for Hulu Selangor was still alive, Pakatan Rakyat would have started with a sizeable bank of grateful Malay voters when the time came. However, he would have appeared to be a parochial Malay politician since he was only solving a local Malay problem rather than the bigger state issue of a PLC’s debts to state companies. My guess is that his DAP colleagues in the state exco would certainly have frowned on such parochialism, if not racism.
DAP and their partners in the Selangor state government did not anticipate the Prime Minister himself to go down campaigning in Hulu Selangor. When he did, Lim Kit Siang was his usual derisive self in Parliament but he quickly realised the danger since he was the first Pakatan leader to publicly caution his partners of possible defeat. In other words, while DAP was initially gung-ho with Zaid as its preferred choice, it was also quick to distance itself from a now possible defeat. DAP could do nothing to convince Malay voters and yet could see that by BN sticking to its power-sharing concept in letting an MIC leader to be its candidate plus with Najib’s increasing influence with Indian voters, Zaid may not yet be certain to win Hulu Selangor.
My own take on Zaid and Hulu Selangor is that it was for Pakatan to lose. PKR’s Khaled Ibrahim probably felt so constrained by his DAP colleagues from using his knowledge and ability to solve a long-standing local problem because it was seen as a Malay and not a Malaysian problem. He had to prove to his colleagues that he was more Malaysian than Malay even though in the end Pakatan was the loser. I cannot understand this part since a problem is a problem and the fact that it was just the Malays that were affected by a corporate deal gone bad does not make the problem any less Malaysian. Secondly, ignoring the real need for constituency service, particularly when the incumbent state assemblymen were all from BN, in choosing Zaid over Dr. Halili smacks of DAP’s arrogance: a voice in Parliament was seen to be far better than that of simple and straightforward constituency service! Dr. Halili’s victory would have been the bridgehead for further Pakatan’s gains in Hulu Selangor in the next general elections.
On that last note, I would be severely criticised by my own voters if I was that arrogant. Anyway, our Parliament’s loss was that we could not now enjoy the thoughts and perceptions, no matter how less articulate, of a skilled neurosurgeon. The bright side is that we are spared of yet another lawyer-legislator on the other side of the House. Zaid cannot be faulted since he could not have known of the omissions of the Selangor state leadership when they prefer to see the big picture and not of the opportunity to solve the real problems of real people, even though they are former Felda settlers.
SHAHRIR ABDUL SAMAD
Johor Bahru
27th April 2010
When it was announced that Pakatan Rakyat had chosen Datuk Zaid Ibrahim over Dr. Halili Rahmat as its candidate for the Hulu Selangor by-election, my gut feeling was that DAP’s will had prevailed. It was a choice of articulateness in Parliament rather than serving the voters of Hulu Selangor. The neurosurgeon, a local boy made good, was known only to the PKR grassroots but was not up to mark for the more issue-oriented Lim Kit Siang and his colleagues. Zaid fitted well with the DAP with his more worldly views. Dr. Halili would have been just another MP focused on serving his constituents rather than the legislator-type preferred by DAP.
DAP’s representatives in the Selangor state government had effectively serviced the Chinese electorate in Hulu Selangor and as the election results showed even the current MCA state assemblyman was already diminished in influence in his own constituency. DAP was confident that with the Chinese votes in hand, all Zaid had to do was deliver a good part of the Malay electorate. DAP did not however count on two possibilities. One was that the PKR-led state government had ignored to solve the local Malay issues, particularly that of the former Felda settlers of Sg. Buaya, in the two years after the general elections. Secondly, DAP did not realise that by emphasising on Zaid’s role in Parliament, the challenge was more directly aimed at Datuk Seri Najib’s leadership and would invite the Prime Minister’s own participation in the campaign. After all it was Zaid who openly asked the Yang DiPertuan Agong to block Najib’s assumption of premiership.
On the first matter, Tan Sri Khaled Ibrahim was eager to show off his corporate skills and had done so in handling Talam’s debts with state-owned companies. However that caused the first significant resignation of a PKR national party official, that of its Treasurer, Sallehudin Hashim, who now seems to preside at every subsequent resignation of PKR leaders. If Tan Sri Khaled were to apply his corporate skills to the less glamourous issue of the former Felda settlers while the late PKR MP for Hulu Selangor was still alive, Pakatan Rakyat would have started with a sizeable bank of grateful Malay voters when the time came. However, he would have appeared to be a parochial Malay politician since he was only solving a local Malay problem rather than the bigger state issue of a PLC’s debts to state companies. My guess is that his DAP colleagues in the state exco would certainly have frowned on such parochialism, if not racism.
DAP and their partners in the Selangor state government did not anticipate the Prime Minister himself to go down campaigning in Hulu Selangor. When he did, Lim Kit Siang was his usual derisive self in Parliament but he quickly realised the danger since he was the first Pakatan leader to publicly caution his partners of possible defeat. In other words, while DAP was initially gung-ho with Zaid as its preferred choice, it was also quick to distance itself from a now possible defeat. DAP could do nothing to convince Malay voters and yet could see that by BN sticking to its power-sharing concept in letting an MIC leader to be its candidate plus with Najib’s increasing influence with Indian voters, Zaid may not yet be certain to win Hulu Selangor.
My own take on Zaid and Hulu Selangor is that it was for Pakatan to lose. PKR’s Khaled Ibrahim probably felt so constrained by his DAP colleagues from using his knowledge and ability to solve a long-standing local problem because it was seen as a Malay and not a Malaysian problem. He had to prove to his colleagues that he was more Malaysian than Malay even though in the end Pakatan was the loser. I cannot understand this part since a problem is a problem and the fact that it was just the Malays that were affected by a corporate deal gone bad does not make the problem any less Malaysian. Secondly, ignoring the real need for constituency service, particularly when the incumbent state assemblymen were all from BN, in choosing Zaid over Dr. Halili smacks of DAP’s arrogance: a voice in Parliament was seen to be far better than that of simple and straightforward constituency service! Dr. Halili’s victory would have been the bridgehead for further Pakatan’s gains in Hulu Selangor in the next general elections.
On that last note, I would be severely criticised by my own voters if I was that arrogant. Anyway, our Parliament’s loss was that we could not now enjoy the thoughts and perceptions, no matter how less articulate, of a skilled neurosurgeon. The bright side is that we are spared of yet another lawyer-legislator on the other side of the House. Zaid cannot be faulted since he could not have known of the omissions of the Selangor state leadership when they prefer to see the big picture and not of the opportunity to solve the real problems of real people, even though they are former Felda settlers.
SHAHRIR ABDUL SAMAD
Johor Bahru
27th April 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment