Friday, June 09, 2006

Mahathir vs Abdullah Badawi. Is there more than meets the eye?

The dam finally burst. Mahathir has been indirectly criticising the decisions made by Abdullah Badawi's administration since the sacking of Proton's former CEO some month's ago. But until just now, he has been mindful to criticise the decisions of the government, and not the PM himself. Now, it's all changed. In press reports, Mahathir has been quoted as saying:

1. Najib, not Badawi, was his first choice.
2. He (Mahathir) has some bruises, ostensibly from being back-stabbed
3. Badawi has broken the trust he (Mahathir) had placed on him, esp considering Mahathir expected some gratitude
4. He (Mahathir) has a habit of choosing the wrong people
5. The govt has more money now than it ever did. The means to develop the country is there, but is being manipulated by people with their own agendas.

What prompted Tun Mahathir to make such direct & abrasive comments?

Many people attribute the Tun's comments to his being disappointed and annoyed that the govt is slowly but surely dismantling his legacy. By actions such as the reduction of protection for Proton, the cancellation of the crooked bridge, stopping the development of Putrajaya etc.

But do I think that it's as simple as that? Come on, we all know how calculated the Tun is. IMHO, he will never make such a public criticism if he didn't have a specific end in mind. I think it's part of a larger scheme that has been put in motion. Remember this is Malaysia. Politics is never exactly as reported by the press.

I remember one thing the Tun said, when he criticised the cancellation of the crooked bridge. When the crooked bridge was cancelled and Malaysia supposedly refused Singapore's demand to sell sand and airspace to Singapore - the Tun said that Malaysia was losing her sovereignty.

Huh???? According to the official press, we refused to sell our sand, we refused to provide access to our airspace and we unilaterally decided to cancel the bridge. How did that result in a loss of sovereignty? In the eyes of the Malaysian public, we actually exercised and reinforced our sovereignty.

But the Tun insisted that we lost sovereignty. How? If we remember how Malaysian politics work, things are NEVER as they seem. And if we remember how the Tun works, he never tells the whole story at once. Sometimes, he even tells a story unrelated to his comments or assertions.

So, I've been trying to figure out what the Tun meant by the loss of our sovereignty. Then I came across this series of articles by Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK; most probably a pen name) called "The Khairy Chronicles" published on Malaysia-Today.
RPK makes some pretty serious assertions about current political landscape in Malaysia. The name of the articles - "The Khairy Chronicles" - provides some clues as to the main thrust of the writing. The first time I read these articles, I dismissed them as fanciful and fictional. Good reading, good entertainment but just a figment of his overactive imagination.

But since the Tun's comment about national sovereignty, I began to notice more closely the editorials in the NST, the news regarding companies related to Badawi, his son-in-law Khairy, the rest of their family and closest associates, and not in the least, the recent actions, statements and posture of Abdullah Badawi and his administration (all detailed and analysed in "The Khairy Chronicles"). The more I register as events unfold, the more I think that RPK and "The Khairy Chronicles" might have got it going on!

I was on the fence regarding the veracity of "The Khairy Chronicles", but the Tun's outburst a couple of days ago (especially his comment that "some people have personal agendas") has convinced me that something's definitely afoot, and "The Khairy Chronicles" might be more fact than fiction.

Click on the banner above for the latest edition of "The Khairy Chronicles" and on this link for links to the whole series of articles.

1 comment:

seantang said...

Today in the Star online: Dr M: I want wrongs set right.
thestar.com.my

There's a raft of quotes from Dr M in this article. He rehashes all the statements he has made since his tirade began. From APs and MV Augusta to the Crooked Bridge... it is my opinion that all these are just pieces of his elaborate smokescreen.

The wily Tun does however, subtly reveal another part of his root concern.

This excerpt from the aricle is what I'm referring to:

“But something has gone very wrong, and I hope Abdullah will do something about it,” he said, implying that there were elements of external control in the administration of the Government.