MCA Deputy President Wee Ka Siong is confused or trying to have the best of both worlds after falsely blaming Chinese Malaysiakini for “twisting” his earlier remark(en/cn)

Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP For Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 9.5.2014.

MCA Deputy President Wee Ka Siong is confused or trying to have the best of both worlds after falsely blaming Chinese Malaysiakini for “twisting” his earlier remark that he did not say that MCA will leave BN but will only review the party’s position if Umno supports hudud. However, Chinese Malaysiakini never twisted what Wee had said and reported correctly that Wee had said that a review of MCA’s position in BN did not mean that MCA would withdraw from BN.

Unfortunately no one understands Wee twisted logic, because there is no point in reviewing MCA’s position in BN if it does not mean that MCA would withdraw from BN. How can Wee say his “conscience is clear” when his illogical reasoning makes his political motives so unprincipled? Clearly Wee is consistent by following MCA President Liow Tiong Lai’s double-standards of “saying one thing but does another” when MCA defends UMNO for supporting the implementation of hudud in Kelantan and yet opposes PAS for doing exactly the same thing.

Wee should also explain why should MCA go back into Cabinet now when Wee is talking about review when UMNO has flip-flopped its position from opposing the implementation of hudud to fully supporting PAS implementing hudud in Kelantan?

Wee is wrong and dishonest when he said that Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom did not represent BN when Jamil started the entire controversy by instigating PAS in Parliament on March 27 2014 to implement hudud on Muslims in Kelantan. Jamil had said that “the federal government will be ready to work with any state government that is ready to implement hudud including Kelantan, because Umno Kelantan assemblypersons had supported the passing of Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code Enactment II to implement hudud in 1993”.

Jamil even suggested that it is up to the non-government members of Parliament to table a private member’s’ bill for that purpose and that any state government that plans to implement hudud was welcome to do so. How can Wee say that Jamil did not represent BN when Jamil was replying on behalf of the BN government in Parliament? As as former Deputy Minister himself, Wee should know that any replies given in Parliament is made on behalf of the BN government not just on behalf of MCA or UMNO. This is the principle of collective responsibility in government.

Jamil Khir even went a step further by forming a joint central technical committee comprising PAS, Putrajaya and the Kelantan government to look into the implementation of hudud in Kelantan in a joint press conference with Kelantan Deputy Menteri Besar Datuk Mohd Amar Nik Abdullah on 2.5.2014.

Instead of criticising UMNO, MCA President Liow Tiong Lai has chosen to pin the blame of DAP and PAS despite DAP openly criticising PAS for openly working with UMNO to implement hudud, after failing to secure support from DAP and PR. Can Liow explain the perverse logic and double-standards of MCA not daring to criticise UMNO for instigating PAS to implement hudud laws in Kelantan but yet attacking DAP that had openly criticised both PAS and UMNO for wanting to do so?

To cover-up MCA’s lack of courage to criticise UMNO for supporting the implementation of hudud in Kelantan, MCA is relying on their control of the mainstream media to distort and lie as well as question DAP for refusing to work with MCA to oppose PAS implementing hudud. In view of the difficulty of DAP’s explanation getting printed in the mainstream media, DAP urges the public to read the online news media that DAP refuses to co-operate with a MCA that still dare not criticise UMNO for co-operating with PAS to implement hudud in Kelantan.

The mainstream media did not print former MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek’s full agreement with the DAP that only UMNO with the largest number of MPs(88) in Parliament, has the power to determine success or failure in PAS’ attempt to implement hudud in Kelantan. For that reason Chua said that it is only logical that MCA must first convince Umno not to support PAS implementing hudud.

Wee and Liow’s continued defense of UMNO contrasts with the clear and unequivocal stand of DAP in opposing the hudud bill whether it is implemented by PAS or UMNO, whether in or outside Kelantan, whether on Muslim or non-Muslims because it is unconstitutional.

LIM GUAN ENG

============================================================================

民主行动党秘书兼峇眼区国会议员林冠英于2014年5月9日在吉隆坡发表的文告:

马华署理总会长魏家祥抵赖《当今大马》中文版曲解他早前称若巫统支持伊刑法马华将重新检讨其在国阵的地位,他并没有说马华要过退出国阵。魏家祥根本是自我混淆或尝试咬文嚼字沾了两边便宜还卖乖,因为《当今大马》根本没有曲解他的说法,报导正确的指出魏家祥说将重新检讨在国阵的地位。

非常不幸的,没有人可以理解魏家祥咬文嚼字的逻辑,因为若其意思不是说要退出国阵,根本没必要再检讨马华在国阵的地位。当魏家祥毫无逻辑可言的借口揭露出其毫无言责的政治动机的时候,他怎么可以说“清清白白对得住良心”呢? 很明显的,当马华维护巫统支持在吉兰丹实施伊刑法,却同时反对伊斯兰党的同样措举,足见魏家祥完全跟足马华总会长“讲一套做又是另一套”的双重标准。

既然当巫统出尔反尔从反对变成支持在吉兰丹实施伊刑法,魏家祥说要重新检讨马华在国阵的地位,那魏家祥就应该解释为何马华还需要现在重回内阁?

当魏家祥说首相署部长加米尔不代表国阵时,他错了,并且也不老实,2014年3月27日是加米尔在国会挑起整件事,唆使伊斯兰党在吉兰丹向穆斯林推行伊斯兰刑事法。加米尔也说,“联邦政府愿意与任何准备推行伊斯兰刑事法的州政府合作,包括吉兰丹,因为巫统吉兰丹州议员已经在1993年支持通过吉兰丹伊斯兰刑事法修正案II,在该州推行伊斯兰刑事法。”

加米尔甚至建议由非政府成员的国会议员提呈私人法案,也欢迎任何州政府计划推行伊斯兰刑事法。当加米尔代表国阵政府在国会回答提问,魏家祥怎么可以说加米尔并不代表国阵?而身为前副部长,魏家祥应该知道任何在国会期间回答的问题都是代表国阵政府,而不是马华或巫统。这是政府成员党集体负责的原则。

加米尔基尔甚至进一步于2014年5月2日与吉兰丹副州务大臣拿督莫哈末阿玛尔的联合记者会上,宣布成立一个联合中央技术委员会,包含伊斯兰党、布城及吉兰丹政府,以研究如何在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法。

廖中莱没有批评巫统,却选择怪罪行动党及伊斯兰党,尽管行动党公开批评伊斯兰党在得不到行动党与民联的支持下,与巫统合作推行伊斯兰刑事法。行动党已经公开批评伊斯兰党及巫统在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法,廖中莱能不能解释他为何批评行动党却不批评巫统唆使伊斯兰党的错误逻辑及双重标准?

为了掩饰马华没勇气批评巫统支持在吉兰丹落实伊刑法,马华只有透过主流媒体来扭曲及撒谎,同时质问行动党为何不与马华合作反对伊斯兰党实施伊刑法。有鉴于行动党的解释很难在主流媒体获得刊登,行动党呼吁公众阅读网上新闻媒体,清楚说明行动党拒绝与马华合作,因为马华根本没胆抨击与伊斯兰党联手要实施伊刑法的巫统。

主流媒体也没有刊登前马华总会长蔡细历医生完全同意行动党,那就是只要拥有88名国会议员的巫统,有权力决定伊斯兰党能否在吉兰丹推行伊斯兰刑事法。因此,蔡细历说,只有马华首先说服巫统不支持伊斯兰党推行伊斯兰刑事法才是符合逻辑的。

魏家祥与廖中莱继续自相矛盾的维护巫统,行动党则无论如何明确地反对伊斯兰党或巫统要实施伊刑法,不管是在吉兰丹州内州外实施,不管是向穆斯林或非穆斯林实施,因为这都是违宪的。

林冠英

0 Responses to “MCA Deputy President Wee Ka Siong is confused or trying to have the best of both worlds after falsely blaming Chinese Malaysiakini for “twisting” his earlier remark(en/cn)”


Comments are currently closed.