interview

Lim Kean Siew is a man with a colourful past. He was the founder and secretary-general of the now defunct Labour Party of Malaya. He was an elected member of parliament of Datuk Keramat, Penang in 1959 and 1964 and served as the island's state liaison committee chairman in the 1970s.

For his socialist and pro-communist activities during his Labour party days, Lim had been detained and interrogated by Special Branch officers for days.

Lim joined the MCA after he left the Labour Party and has been a member up till 1983. He was the political advisor to former MCA president Lee San Choon. He is now a practising lawyer, residing in Penang. When he joined the government, he was offered positions as a Court of Appeal judge and minister of rural development by the late prime minister Tun Abdul Razak. He declined to accept the positions as 'they had merely wanted to silence' him.

Malaysiakini: What's your assessment of MCA?

Lim Kean Siew : Nothing is permanent. Even something which appears to be permanent like the Taliban in Afghanistan collapses. What frightens me is that some people say Malaysia is very stable.

In the MCA, for example, the time has come to consider changes. This applies to Umno as well. Even (Prime Minister) Mahathir Mohamad cannot last forever. For example, when the country gained independence, the Alliance government back then - which comprised of Umno, MCA and MIC - was supposed to be part of the organisation to develop Malaysia. At the moment, though, MCA does not seem effective anymore. So this begs the question, is it necessary to have MCA?

Attempts at changing the leadership - whether right or not right - is democracy.

The recent purchase of Nanyang Siang Pau and China Press by MCA investment arm Huaren Holdings seems to have split the party.

On the surface, the Nanyang issue seemed to be the beginning of the crisis, but why should Nanyang be an issue or a crisis? There are several ways to look at this. From my point of view, the takeover of Nanyang is an attempt at a monopoly.

I was partly responsible for the MCA taking over The Star but the attempt at that time was to give the Chinese community a voice in the English newspaper. Then we wanted to widen that voice in a Chinese newspaper so we set up Thong Pao . The paper folded. The Star is not capable of running a Chinese newspaper, so why allow it to take over Nanyang ?

MCA president Ling Liong Sik says the takeover is purely a business deal.

If indeed it is a pure business deal, where are the published facts and figures? Nanyang is heavily in debt and the decision to take it over did not go through proper discussions. It was done fait accompli .

Now we hear that Sin Chew (Jit Poh) is taking over Nanyang and soon we will have only one Chinese newspaper. Nanyang can then virtually close down.

We cannot see this issue from a business point of view, we have to see it from a political standpoint. We have to judge MCA from a political point of view because it is a political party.

In this matter, MCA has been a bit thoughtless and blind. I am no longer in MCA but certainly if I'm a member, I will make the same judgement because I will ask myself, who am I working for?

There are rumours that Sin Chew is also eyeing a stake in the Penang-based Kwong Wah Jit Poh .

Kwong Wah belongs to former business tycoon Loh Boon Siew. He built it up, he needed it and it was mostly a social gossip paper. If it is to be taken over as a good business proposition, we must support it. But will it benefit the Chinese? We must ask: is it to stifle another newspaper? We need independence for our journalists just like we need independence for our judiciary.

Talking about the judiciary, what do you think of Abdul Gani Patail's appointment as the new attorney-general?

Why are we using him as AG when the lawyers and judges are against his appointment? He was responsible for the prosecution of ex-deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim.

As a lawyer, I have only one big respect in society and that is respect for the law. I believe in the utter inviolability of the law, that's why I chose to practise, I did not want to sit on the bench although I have been offered (during second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak's time) but I know I will lose my independence. But judges must stand above politics and pressure. That's why I believe in Chief Justice Dzaiddin Abdullah.

The AG is responsible for all prosecution. If all judges are truly fair then we don't have to worry about the AG. However, if the appointment is part and process of the government having influence in the judiciary, it can become very dangerous. I do not want to comment further except for this - Gani was involved in the prosecution of Anwar and whilst I do not want to say anything about Anwar, there were issues in the prosecution that I find difficult to accept. Surely there is protest that he becomes AG.

Mahathir recently said the Internal Security Act is still relevant and that we have been successful in containing terrorism.

The ISA is a British law. The House of Lords introduced it to us. And yet when it was recently proposed in the British Parliament, the House of Lords rejected it. But if you think they are following us, or Mahathir, if they adopt this law, then you are wrong. They are merely adopting a law which they put in place here.

I put the blame of the ills in Malaysia on the Emergency Regulations and the Internal Security Act. The whole problem stems from 1948. Until then we were fighting for Independence and a Malaysian Malaysia.

The British were anti-communist and anti-Chinese. They supported the split of Singapore from Malaysia. These two countries are now ruled by the ISA in order to have stability. Consequently, we have stability - beautiful skin on the outside but underneath we have 'rotten eggs'. We do not have national heroes, we only have yesmen, and we all know who they are.

But don't you think that we have been successful in containing several so-called Islamic extremist groups by invoking ISA, for example the KMM (Kumpulan Mujahiddin Malaysia)?

The KMM proved that in one way or another we have encouraged terrorism in the name of Islam. This has happened since the time of first prime minister Tuanku Abdul Rahman.

The Sept 11 terrorist attacks has exposed all these. We should take advantage of the situation and expose terrorists who hijack Islam by terror just as Osama bin Laden had hijacked the Taliban.

The Sept 11 tragedy and attempts to blow up the Indian Parliament were obvious acts of those deliberately trying to provoke an Islamic war, create chaos, violence and disrupt proper government besides the destruction of a natural state in the name of Islam. But Islam is not that and it is the duty of Umno to stand against it, not support it.

Mahathir has recently declared that Malaysia is an Islamic state, and this was supported by MCA and Gerakan.

As far as MCA and Gerakan are concerned, this is a 'brown-nosing' exercise. They have no justification for it. How can anyone say this is a non-issue unless they don't know the meaning of an Islamic state?

Turkey and Malaysia are good examples of a Muslim state but both are secular states - that's why Chinese prayers are allowed and people can celebrate Christmas. In a true Islamic state however, only Muslims are taken care of, others are not in the purview. Therefore in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Christians and those of other religions have no function.

Do you think the Barisan Alternatif is viable for non-Muslims, given that coalition member PAS has declared it is seeking an Islamic state?

We can support PAS but the party must accept that there are people of other religions in the Malaysia. PAS only preaches to the Muslims and not to the kafir . They have not issued a statement on the rights of the kafir . There are fears that in the Islamic state there is respect only for one race and one religion.