Press Statement by the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Kota Melaka, Lim Kit Siang, in Malacca on Monday, 16.12.1985:
DAP calls on Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed, not to breach his promise to make public the final report of the Ahmad Nordin BMF Inquiry Committee just because politicians may be named in it
The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed, should not break his promise to make public the Ahamd Nordin BMF Inquiry final report made when he announced the formation of the Inquiry Committee in January 1984 just because politicians may be named in the final report.
It is significant that when Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin announcement the completion of the BMF Inquiry final report, on 8th Dec. 1985, he did not rule out the possibility of politicians being involved in the BMF loans scandal, although he declined to comment on whether there were politicians named in the final report except to say that there were several other names mentioned in it.
Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir should heed the advice of former Prime Minister, Tun Hussein Onn, that the government should name all those involved in the BMF loans scandal, whoever they are, whether prominent politicians or figures.
In the past few days, the Attorney-General, Tri Sri Abu Talib Othman, has emerged as a crusader and the chief campaigner against the public release of the BMF inquiry final report. He seems to have got support from the Bank Bumiputra Chairman, Tan Sri Haji Basir Ismail, who said yesterday that he was inclined to agree with the Attorney-General that the final BMF loans scandal report should not be mad epublic, although a final decision had not been made.
The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othamn, would be grossly misleading the Malaysian people if he wants everybody to accept that the prerogative of deciding whether to make public the final BMF scandal inquiry report rests with Bank Bumiputra, for this flies in the face of what the government had been doing the three-year-old BMF scandal.
IN the first place, the Attorney-General should realise that the first interim report of the Ahmad Nordin BMF Inquiry Committee was made public on the directive of the Cabinet, and not the Bank Bumiputra. On 31st Oct. 1984, after its Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting, the Prime Minsiter, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamed, announced that the Cabinet had just ‘scrutinised’ the BMF Inquiry Committee’s interim report, and decided to release the full contents to the public. ‘Nothing will be concealed’, he said.
Secondly, the Attorney-General should again remember that the public release of the fourth brief of the Ahamd Nordin BMF Inquiry Committee on ‘Prima facie cases of corruption’ on 2nd January 1985 was again the instruction of the Cabinet.
In fact, the BMF Inquiry Committee’s brief on ‘Prime facie cases of corruption’ was made public two days after the Finance Minister, Daim Zainddin, announced a new Bank Bumiputra Chairman and Board of Director after the Petronas take-over, when it was clearly impossible for the new Bank Bumiputra Board to meet to decide on the brief.
Is the Attorney-General stating that the public release of both these BMF Inquiry Committee reports were wrong, abuse of power by the Cabinet, and should not have taken place?
Is the Attorney-General now contending that the Cabinet could decide on the public release of the BMF Inquiry Committee’s first interim report and the brief on ‘Prima facie cases of corruption’, but had no right or power or power to decide on the publication of the BMF Inquiry Committee’s final report. What is the Attorney-General’s logic or rationale?
All the Malaysian ministers should realise that they are on trial in the eyes of the Malaysian people as to whether they are prepared to honour the Prime Minister’s pledge and the administration’s motto of ‘clean, efficient and trustworthy government’ by making public the final BMF report without any delay after Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting. Malaysian know from the previous history of the BMF scandal that the Bank Bumiputra is a creature of the government, and therefore, is subordinate and subservient to the powers and duties of the Cabinet.
I call on all the Cabinet Ministers from the various Barisan Nasional component parties not to let down the people and to live up to their Ministerial responsibilities to order the public release of the Ahamd Nordin BMF Inquiry Committee final report.
I commend Tan Sri Ahmad Nordin for being awarded the Tun Razak Foundation award for 1986, in particular for his role in the investigations into the $2.5 billion BMF loans scandal. If the Ahmad Nordin Inquiry Committee’ final report is not made public, it would be tantamount to a waste of Tan sri Ahamd Nordin’s time, as well as the some $2 million spent on the inquiry, as well as a government rejection of the BMF final report.
DAP condemns Dr Ling Liong Sik’s biased and discriminatory sentiments against Chinese education and Chinese-educated.
The new Tan Koon Swan MCA leadership had pledged to promote and safeguard Chinese education, but before they could show what they are capable of, their first action is to take action detrimental to Chinese education and the Chinese educated.
For thirty years, Junior Middle students of Chinese of Chinese Independent Secondary School could sit for the SRP, and previously the LCE, examination, with no objection from any quarter. But on becoming the Deputy MCA President, Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik’s first objective is to ensure that Chinese Independent Secondary School Junior Middle III students are not allowed to sit for the SRP until their fourth secondary year.
Datuk Dr Ling said that this is to prevent the promotion of ‘elitism’ in Chinese Independent Secondary Schools. It is public knowledge that it is the government policy to promote ‘elitism’ among Malay students, and this is why the best of the Malay students in Std. V Assessment Test are creamed away to residential colleges, where the best teachers and facilities are provided. Furthermore, ‘elitism’ among Malay students are further promoted at the secondary school level, where the cream of the Malay students are sent overseas for post-secondary and university education – leaving the second-best for the local schools, colleges and universities.
Datuk Dr Ling has no objective to the promotion of ‘elitism’ among Malay students, but he is opposed to the promotion of ‘elitism’ in Chinese Independent secondary schools.
The DAP condemns this biased and discriminatory attitude of Datuk Dr Ling Liong Sik to Chinese education and the Chinese educated, and demand that the new MCA Central Executive Committee should dissociate itself from Datuk Dr Ling’s views, and take disciplinary action against Datuk Dr Ling for taking a position highly detrimental to the interests of the Malaysian Chinese as a whole, and Chinese education and the Chinese educated in particular.