The Emperorissimo of Middle Malaysia Lim Kit Siang has proven to be a consistent and habitual liar, especially on the Chinese Chauvinist DAP progressive contribution and involvement in nation building.
The pro-Answarista news portal story:
DAP supported Razak’s NEP, until it became ‘Umno-putra’ agenda, says Kit Siang
BY EILEEN NG
Published: 16 January 2015 9:00 AM
DAP veteran leader Lim Kit Siang says second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak was committed to democracy and the politics of inclusion. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Mukhriz Hazim, January 16, 2015.
Opposition party, the DAP, has always supported the New Economic Policy (NEP) for its objectives on poverty eradication and to restructure society, its veteran leader Lim Kit Siang said.
The pro-Bumiputera policy, however, only became a problem over the years due to the way it was implemented, until it became an “Umno-putra agenda” rather than one to benefit the non-elite Malays, Lim said of the policy created by Malaysia’s second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein.
“As a result, it benefits the Umno cronies and warlords resulting in a disparity of haves and have-nots. This has been confirmed by recent studies,” Lim said in an interview for The Malaysian Insider’s series to commemorate Razak’s 39th death anniversary on January 14, 1976.
The NEP was designed to lift Malays and Bumiputeras out of poverty and close the wealth gap with other races, as well as to dismantle the association of race with economic function.
It came about after the trauma of the May 13, 1969, race riots. Razak, the policy’s architect, became prime minister after the riots.
Lim noted that unlike then, there is now less wealth disparity between the races, but more disparity among people of the same race.
“So the whole NEP, which I have said all along, should be based on needs rather than race or quota. It should be replaced by a needs-based approach,” said the long-time MP.
Lim was first elected to parliament by winning the Kota Melaka seat in 1969. Soon after the riots, however, he was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for 17 months.
He was released a month after Razak became prime minister.
Lim, currently the Gelang Patah MP, was detained once again under the ISA in 1987 as part of the government’s Ops Lalang crackdown.
Here, he talks about Razak from the view of the opposition, noting the late leader’s commitment to democracy, to the politics of inclusion and to a secular state – the same ideals the DAP espouses.
TMI: What kind of person was Tun Razak to you?
Lim: He was very hardworking, a patrician. He was very serious about his responsibilities. He was not as open and jolly as the Tunku (Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman) but he was very serious and committed to his responsibilities.
TMI: Can you share some of the memorable things he said, or personal experiences you had with him?
Lim: The only thing that I can remember was (an episode) at the end of the Parliament sitting at the end of November or beginning December of 1975. Those days, the prime minister would have a party for all MPs. It was an almost annual affair at Seri Perdana (the PM’s official residence), which was located near Parliament in those days.
He had a private office there and he was taking calls. Later, he told me (about a call concerning) his son Najib’s (the current prime minister) graduation and how happy he was.
That was my last meeting with him, and later I heard he passed away in London. No one knew about his critical condition.
TMI: What can you recall of him from the time he replaced Tunku Abdul Rahman as prime minister following the May 13, 1969, riots?
Lim: I was in jail at that time (under the ISA). He became the prime minister in September 1970.
I was released on October 1 as part of the process of normalisation and restoration of parliamentary democracy.
TMI: Tun Razak set up the Barisan Nasional (BN) to replace the Alliance. Do you think this formula of one-race parties sharing power in an alliance is still relevant today, or should Malaysia move towards multiracial political parties?
Lim: Definitely. Now you have even greater examples of Umno hegemony and very clearly the voices and views of other BN component parties, although increased to 14, have become even more insignificant, whether you are looking at Peninsular politics or even in Sabah.
There is hardly any room for the views of other component parties to be heard seriously.
The last two general election results show greater acceptance of multiracial politics, of politics that is not race-centred.
One of the reasons for (people’s) rejection of the BN model is because it is basically an Umno hegemony, where one party rules the roost and the others are just there for decorative purposes and to comply, (with) no voice of their own.
Whereas in Pakatan Rakyat, there is a genuine relationship of equals.
Now, coming to the sixth decade of nation building, more Malaysians are becoming more Malaysian-centred and oriented rather than solely concerned about race and religion.
That is why I think there’s this concern about a fallback to this emphasis on race and religion in the last few years and hence, the call for moderation and to be against extremism resonates in the country.
TMI: How do you evaluate Tun Razak’s economic and social integration policies, particularly through the NEP, in the light of the last few decades – has the policy succeeded? What went wrong? What needs to change?
Lim: As far as the NEP is concerned, DAP supports the two prongs of the policy whose overall objective is to bring about national unity. And the two objectives are to eliminate poverty regardless of race and to restructure society so that there is no identification of race with economic function.
These two objectives are noble and we fully support it.
The only problem is over the years, the elimination of poverty has been supplanted by the second objective which is to restructure society, and this has been seen as a Malay agenda rather than a Malaysian agenda, and secondly, even worse, it has been seen as an Umno-putra agenda rather than the Bumiputera agenda.
As a result, it benefits the Umno cronies and warlords resulting in a disparity of haves and have-nots.
This has been confirmed by recent studies; that although you might have a lesser interracial disparity, intra-race disparity has been widened and I think it is a matter of grave concern.
So the whole NEP, which I have said all along, should be based on needs rather than race or quota. It should be replaced by a needs-based approach.
Instead of fostering national unity, the NEP has created greater division, disunity and polarisation. A needs-based approach would be able to deal with problems of racial polarisation.
The time has come for a really serious study of the NEP as recommended by economist (Tan Sri) Kamal Salih.
TMI: What is Tun Razak’s legacy to Malaysia today?
Lim: His commitment to democracy, a commitment to a greater politics of inclusion and the basis of the Federal Constitution as a secular state.
I think these are policies that put Malaysia on the middle path.
He was committed to democracy and the restoration of democracy after the May 13 tragedy.
Setting up BN to replace the Alliance was an acknowledgement of a need for a greater politics of inclusion rather than of exclusion, but it had to be followed through with a full acceptance of multiracialism and not be just a front.
Tun Razak was one of the first three prime ministers (during a) most significant period, 1957 to 1982, where the basis of Malaysia as a multiracial, democratic, secular state (with) Islam as the federal religion, was not in question.
TMI: What do you think of Razak’s son Najib as prime minister? Do you think he lives up to his father’s legacy?
Lim: One big difference between Razak and Najib would be that Razak was very hands on. Najib is very hands off.
Razak is famous for his development policy known as the Red Book and he will personally go and check on programmes and projects. He was very hands on whereas you don’t see Najib doing that, he’s hands off, (going) all over the world. – January 16, 2015.
The pro-communist DAP and Partai Sosialis, who were the primary “subversive elements” in instigating the racial riots which erupted on 13 May 1969, remained to be anti-nation building.
The fact is that the Chinese Chauvinist DAP opted out the national consultative council formed in Jan 1970 by then Deputy Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein as a solution to the aftermath of the 13 May 1969 racial riots. The economic disparity between races and geography contributed to the ill feeling which was coupled with incitement and instigation, erupted into clashes in Klang Valley.
It is clear, as presented in the book “The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume 2, Part 2, From World War II” published by Cambridge University.
It is clear Lim lied about supporting NEP. He and Chinese Chauvinist DAP have been anti-NEP right before it was formed (the refusal for National Consultative Council).