I have read MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong’s response to Muhammad Sanusi. Wee Ka Siong failed the test miserably.
Sanusi said that the Chinese have China, Indians have India, while the Malays only have Tanah Melayu. His words were clear. He suggested that Malaysian Chinese and Indians have another country while the Malays only have Malaysia.
Wee Ka Siong refused to say that Sanusi was wrong. He did not demand that Sanusi withdraw his statement. He also did not demand an apology.
Instead, he said Sanusi’s remarks “can be interpreted” in a certain way. He described them as remarks “attributed” to Sanusi. He also suggested that Sanusi may have been “misunderstood or inaccurately interpreted”.
This is a weak and evasive response coming from the MCA President. It gives Sanusi political cover. Malaysians did not misunderstand Sanusi. We understood exactly what he said.
MIC president SA Vigneswaran gave a direct response. He rejected the treatment of Malaysian Chinese and Indians as foreigners. He also called on BN to review its cooperation with PN. Wee Ka Siong did neither.
Wee Ka Siong previously said that MCA’s cooperation with PN was not unconditional. Sanusi’s statement tested that promise. He failed the test miserably. He refused to support MIC’s call to review the cooperation. He also refused to state what MCA would do if Sanusi did not withdraw his remarks.
Wee Ka Siong then attacked DAP, Hew Kuan Yau and Nga Kor Ming. He also raised the cost of living, education and the economy. These issues have nothing to do with Sanusi’s statement.
If any leader or speaker makes a racist or religiously insulting statement, that statement should be condemned separately. It does not excuse Sanusi. Wee Ka Siong’s offer to arrange a private screening is another diversion. Showing remarks made by other people cannot erase Sanusi’s words.
Wee Ka Siong is loud and brave only when attacking DAP. He becomes soft and cautious when dealing with PAS. His statement shows that he is more concerned about protecting MCA’s electoral cooperation with PAS than confronting Sanusi.
MCA claims to represent the Chinese community. Its president lacked the courage to condemn a PAS leader who suggested that Malaysian Chinese have another country.
Wee Ka Siong should state clearly that Sanusi’s remarks were wrong. He should demand that Sanusi withdraw them and apologise. He should also state whether MCA will review its cooperation with PN if Sanusi refuses.
Until Wee Ka Siong takes these steps, his statement remains an attempt to protect Sanusi and divert attention towards DAP.
Malaysia is the only country of Malaysian Chinese. We are not foreigners, temporary residents or guests. Wee Ka Siong was given a clear opportunity to defend that principle. He failed miserably.