What Stephen Doss Did ? Article 1 - Conspiracy With Khairy Jamaluddin?

[Sources From Suara Rakyat - 3rd October 2007]

Did Khairy also hijack the “Free Burma” demonstration?

Khairy Jamaluddin, the infamous son-in-law of the PM, seems to have perfected the art of hijacking highly visible political events for which he has no moral right to claim credits.

Take, for example, the highly hyped 50th Merdeka celebration at the end of last August. After making some historically false claims of Umno being the sole “winner”of this nation’s independence (“Where were the opposition when we won the independence?”) Khairy and his father-in-law actually enacted the roles of the independence heroes during the ceremonies.

On two occasions, Khairy did the honour of unfurling the Malaysian flag and of leading the procession of youths to present a capsule – to be opened 50 years later –to the PM. The latter even shouted “Merdeka!” seven times, exactly as the Tunku did fifty years ago.

Last Monday (October 1, 2007), Khairy once again demonstrated his extraordinary talent in “political hijack”. This time the occasion was a demonstration – in support of the “saffron revolution” that is going on in Burma – which was supposedly organised by 14 youth NGOs and political parties.

The main organisers from among the NGOs, however, at the crucial moment of the demonstration abdicated to Khairy the honour of reading and presenting the protest note at the Burmese embassy – the duty that was initially to have been assigned to Stephen Doss, the leader of two of the NGOs – also head of research and development at Khairy’s wife’s (Nori) organisation, Penyayang.

Considering that the notorious Stephen Doss was involved, I would not even be surprised if the turn of events had been conspiratorially pre-arranged by him and Khairy. After all, Stephen is famous for his talent of aligning himself or betraying his sponsors from all sides of the political divide.

I can claim to know Stephen quite well – not only for his attempts to align to me during the early days of reformasi (perhaps because he thought I was an ambitious politician with money to throw) but also because he was my student in the graduate program on Civilizational Dialogue at Universiti Malaya.

Eli Wong, in her blog, asked the pertinent question of why Khairy and Pemuda Umno, for the resources and the cash that they control, must hijack other people’s show and not organise one for themselves.

To which, I think, the answer is quite obvious: If Khairy can have the services of the best organiser, or organisers, that money can buy, then would it not be better for him to use the services rather than organise the event himself?

Had Khairy and Pemuda Umno initiate the event from the start, then the whole thing would have appeared hollow and hypocritical. After all, is Pemuda Umno not aligned to a government whose hands are stained with the blood of the people of Burma through its support for the oppressive military junta?

Moreover, who would take seriously a Pemuda Umno’s initiative in defending the people’s right to freedom and protest, when it is part of a government that uses police brutality (even live bullets in the case of Batu Buruk) to suppress its own people who hold peaceful demonstrations?

Isn’t hijacking an event that have already been initiated by someone else at the appropriate juncture a better alternative for the resource-rich and cash-strapped Pemuda Umno?


Comments

Stephen Doss said...
Dear En. Rustam, Khairy did not hijack the event, there is nothing to hide. I invited Pemuda Barisan Nasional to the event, Pemuda Barisan Nasional requested that thier Timbalan Pengerusi Barisan Nasional Khairy Jamaluddin be given a role as they would be mobilizing a big group. As the organizer I agreed and as planned Khairy was given the role of reading the memorandum, Ng Chin Loong from YMM to release the doves(pigeons) and the rest of the NGO leaders to hand the memorandum to the Burmese Ambassador. I can understand your bitterness and anger at the present government but they isn't necessarily a conspiracy under every rock.

best regards
Stephen Doss

Rustam A. Sani said...
A conspiracy does not cease to be a conspiracy just because someone decides not to call it that. When two parties quietly arrange to do something without the knowledge -- and agreement -- of the other parties involved, in my defition it is a conspiracy. And when one party involved in the conspiracy uses it to gain credit, udeservedly, for the whole event -- again without the agreement of the other poarties involved -- then the party has indeed hijacked the event. I thereby rest my case.