Masing explains his stance on ‘Jangan lawan tauke’

Posted on April 16, 2012, Monday

KUCHING: Parti Rakyat Sarawak president Tan Sri Dr James Jemut Masing raised many eyebrows and stirred up a heated debate among voters and politicians with his recent statement , ‘Jangan lawan tauke’.

Since then he had come under relentless fire from the opposition and even some disapproval from among the ranks of Barisan Nasional.

Masing declined an invitation to speak at a forum on the subject held yesterday but on Friday he spoke at length to The Borneo Post explaining his statement and expounding the role of an elected government in a democratic nation.

The following is a compilation of his explanation and views.

“Jangan lawan tauke” basically means do not bite the hands that feed you. It is a principle of life. If people feed you, how can you bite them?

The opposition insists on taking a populist approach which is different from what we as a responsible government are doing. We have been elected and given a mandate for the next five years to decide what is best for the majority.

What we are doing is correct so we will carry on with it. A populist government is different. They will only go to the coffee shop and listen and decide what they do on what people say.

There is no actual strategy or long-term programme.

The opposition is trying to be popular. But ours is a responsible government. We have been elected to do certain things which we intend to see through.

We also listen, but we will not listen to everyone that coughs and sneezes. We decide based on majority. Not just because of one or two people only. Whatever we do is based on the majority and the majority is for us to decide.

During the election, the people are tauke. They decide who should be the leader. Once they elect the leader, they give up the right to the leader to control and look after their life over the next five years. Power transfers from the voters. Based on our judgement, we decide what is good. In a way we become the tauke. We become the custodian of the people’s welfare for the next five years.

The rakyat have the right to monitor the leaders’ performance. But the politicians have to make decisions based on who speaks for the majority and who represents the minority. If it is only a minority which dissents, then the majority will prevail.

The voters have given us the right to decide who the majority is. Voters have to trust the person that they’ve elected to make the right decision. We know full well that if we make the wrong decision, five years down the road we will get thrown out.

Of course there may be unscrupulous individuals who may try to abuse the system but we make decisions collectively, not only one or two. It is a collective decision of the majority.

As a responsible government, we will decide among ourselves – collective responsibility – whether the majority of people want it or not.”

If we make a mistake for it, we will pay for it down the road. But so far BN has not lost the majority support, so we assume we have been correct and that the majority has been with us all these years.”

How do you decide who is the majority? It depends on who you talk to. Out of one thousand, how many can you talk to? And how do you determine who is the majority between elections?

Under our current political system which is a parliamentary democracy, the best situation to determine the majority is when election comes in as all registered voters can express themselves. That is the best indication of whether you were correct. It’s practical.

If the leaders are no good, the voters will throw them out.

Politicians are accountable to hundreds of others. We cannot afford to have a referendum every time something comes up to decide the majority. It is can be very expensive and time consuming.

A parliamentary democracy allows us to go back to the people every five years to decide whether what we had done is correct or wrong.

In politics, it cannot be that every time there is a disagreement that we go for referendum. Otherwise all your money will go for referendum instead of towards what it is meant for.

Voters have to trust us that we know what is best since they put us there.

I believe in the intelligence of the voters to elect representatives and a government that can perform. That’s why they must pick wisely and not choose people who can only talk but are not effective.

As elected representatives, of course we listen to and are very sensitive towards the people. If what they are saying is correct, we will effect transformation from within, but we don’t have to go for referendum to effect transformation.

But the government of the day have to decide first whether the dissenting voices represent the view of the majority of people. If it does, then we have to review our plans. Revision is continual.

Of course we take care of the minority, regardless of whether they support the government or not. Personally, when people ask for my help, I never question whether they are opposition supporters. As a leader, if you need my help, I will help you.

I have helped people who I know have voted against me or who come from opposition held constituencies. It is my duty as an elected representative to do what I can. And I don’t ask them for favours in return.

So to assume that BN plays favourites is wrong. But there are times, if people are angry with us; we expect them to be more understanding if we have helped them before. That’s where “do not bite the hand that feeds you” comes in. That’s how human beings survive because we help each other in times of need regardless of who you are.

If you still disagree with me despite the help I have rendered to you and refuse to help me when the time comes, the best I can hope for is that you do not wallop me in public.

It’s the opposition supporters’ right to choose who they want to vote for and I’ll fight for that right.

But please be more humane in your approach. They should not demonstrate their opposition to BN publicly.

There must be social decency among us that you do not bite the hands that feed you. Every society has this rule otherwise there will be haywire. It may be your right to bite me after helping you but social obligation-wise, it is wrong. Society lives by this rule. It may be unwritten but everyone must abide by it. Otherwise human society is no better off than animals which are not governed by rules.

Concerning the election process which determines the majority, I am very confident in the integrity of the voting system.

For all the terms I have been in politics, there is no way that anyone can tamper with the ballot box. A lot of people who think SPR may have tampered with it have never followed the ballot boxes from beginning to end. Their suspicions are not based on fact.

During the Batang Ai by-elections in 2009 there was a situation when ballot boxes which was only accompanied by SPR officers in a helicopter was revealed to contain majority opposition votes while those which came by boat accompanied by SPR officers, BN and opposition observers showed majority BN votes.

To me, this demonstrates the integrity of the SPR. If you question the ballot box, then you must also question the results in Penang and Selangor. The opposition only questions if the results are not in their favour.

I never question the integrity of the SPR process. There is no way you can tamper with the ballot box.