Screenshots

Your comments towards the end of your message need to be corrected.

It is NOT True to say that MCA was a footnote in Malaysian History at the time of the founding of this nation. No, it is utterly not correct.

Had MCA been the footnote at the time of fighting for independence, Malaya would not have attained independence stayus in 1957. The british saw at the time the determination of the three main communities joining hands to seek independence and with the on-going communist up-rising, it was the only way to defend the integrity of Malaya. Thus, you are utterly wrong to say so.

Today, perhaps MCA has been reduced to what you call 'footnote' may be true and thanks to the 17 years of poor leaership provided by Ling liong Sik who could nto stand the in-slaught of Dr. M.

Ms Siok Choo has the right to be furious that the late Tun Tan Cheng Lock as the FOUNDER of MCA has been inadvertently left out. Yes, Tun Tan Cheng Lock was the catalyst and core for the founding MCA.

I still remember that Siok Choo's father, Tun Tan Siew Sin had a pivotal role in the then Alliance government. My personal experience was that during one occasion whilst we were having a tea in the afternoon, a call came that Tunku, Tun Razak and Tun Sambathan were on the way to his (Tun Tan's) house to discuss state matters of grave concern. Certainly, this did not make MCA a footnote.

There was this tripartite arrangement within the Aliiance party whicvh was later uprooted by the bariasan nasional, the fact that the 1969 fiasco caused this change.

Dr. Ooi may have written a good account on Tun Dr. Ismail, which I have a chance this morning to read some parts in a bookshop, I must say that the course of this country would have change for the better had Tun Dr. Ismail did not die early. I knew Tun Dr. Ismail in person. And I was always respected him as a student in the university and the way hew handled the ISA issue on the certificate of suitability. He said with all sincerity that if as student leaders, we could find an alternative, he was prepared to convince gis colleagues in Cabinet to repeal the ACT.

Such was a leader that Malaysia missed and he stood talk amongst the leadres of this country. Tun Dr Ismail was friendly amongst students in the university of malaya and had no air and mixed very well with all of us. I was convinced that he meant well for all Malaysians irrespective of race, religion and creed,

Jeff, please allow me to use your blog comments to inform readers that my blog at http://rajahram.blogspot.com is now open. Kindly visit and read.

Dear Peterpan,
I don't think Jeff comment meant that MCA was only a footnote in history. Only that many people, out of convenience or otherwise, have 'renegraded' MCA contributions as footnote in history. Sad isn't it. Anything to do with 'gratitude' or compliance?

Jeff, while reading to review the book on Tun Dr Ismail, can you take note of what he had to say about the 30% bumiputra equity. If I remember correctly, when NST reviewed this book a couple of months ago or so, they did mention that the proposal for the 30% and which was agreed to was that at least 30% of the Bumiputras were to participate in Industry and Commerce or something to that effect. Yet in yesterday's NST, (23.3.07) it has been reported taht the present Prime Minister has been quoted as having said that "The minimum 30 per cent equity for the Bumiputera by 2010 is an agenda which will ensure that development will be equally-distributed between the ethnicities and regions in the country." 30% Equity for the bumiputras could very well mean that allthe 30% equity be in the hands of just a handful of bumiputras or even a single bumiputra could end up owning 30%. This is in stark contradiction of what Tun Dr Ismail had proposed and which was agreed to according to this book. (Please confirm, Jeff) If I am not mistaken it was to be 30% of all the bumiputras to be participating in commerce and industry. It is the number of bumiputras involved and that represented the community that was relevant and not what they owned as the measure is right now. Of course you could have 30% of bumiputras involved in Industry and Commerce owning 100% of the equity. That is another matter all together.

But to me it would seem by overlooking the original goals and agenda and shifting the goal post to 30% equity, the ones who have been fooled would appear to be the bumiputras themselves.

During the struggle for independence, MCA was definitely an important partner as UMNO negotiating with the British on its own would have made it a very difficult and uncertain exercise. Tunku Abdul Rahman certainly consulted MCA leaders extensively when he was PM. In the period since 1969, it has been a very different story. MCA now essentially functions as UMNO's public relations organisation to the Chinese community.

If I recall it correctly, during the early days, TTCL & TTSS was not very liked by the chinese. They call him "BaBa Siow" because they speak more english than chinese. And some of the call such as chinese joinin the police got negative response from the chinese community. Its is rather surprising that MCA actually remembered them now!