In a post in February, this year, I had asked whether the Pakatan Selangor state government was “heading into a crisis that it might not recover from should there be a move to replace Khalid after the by-election?”.
Then, PKR seemed to be going out of its way to distance the Kajang Move from talk that it was linked with a plan to remove Khalid from the MB’s post.
Rafizi was emphatic that “Khalid Ibrahim’s administration has shown a sterling performance over the last six years that has endeared him to the public” , but PKR were facing problems and challenges in Selangor that require intervention as they may face unscrupulous attacks and schemes by UMNO to take Selangor by hook or by crook and, hence, the Kajang Move was with a view to get Anwar into the Selangor state assembly so that Pakatan would “have the option to optimise our leadership potential if Umno stirs up more trouble”.
Khalid wasn’t the problem.
I’d heard otherwise from sources I spoke to.
As I said in my post in February, from what I was told, there was a concern, whether real or contrived, that Khalid had turned rogue.
I mentioned the many issues that leaders in Pakatan I had spoken to were concerned about.
Khalid’s inaccessibility to other Exco members of late.
Deals going through without prior consultation with the party higher-ups.
His silence on the Allah issue, the raid on BSM and the confiscation of the bibles.
The Syabas issue.
The settlement of the Bank Islam suit against him.
When I wrote my post in February, I thought then that given PKR was facing a by-election in Kajang, there might be good reason to hold back disclosure of the reasons for the move to remove Khalid until after the conclusion of that by-election, lest the mainstream media go to town on any revelations then, during the campaign period, of any Khalid misdeeds.
Maybe the tell-all would come after the by-election, I thought.
Well, that by-election has come and gone, and guess what?
Not only is the move to replace Khalid as MB presenting a real crisis in the state, but talk is that unless the leaders get their act together, Pakatan may fall apart.
Hadi is not in favour of replacing Khalid.
Nik Aziz is not in favour of Khalid being removed from office.
Is it because the replacement proposed by PKR is a woman, or is it because they are oblivious to any wrongdoing on the part of the incumbent MB?
Or, is there, in truth, no wrong doing warranting a change at the helm of the state government?
This, from the man in centre of the PAS Whatsapp-gate storm, Mohd Zuhdi Marzuki, as reported in Malaysiakini, caught my attention.
Urging that Khalid be allowed to complete his term as MB, Zuhdi said :
“Even though there are somethings about him we like and we don’t, let’s be patient, as long as he is not corrupted. When the mandate is over, we can appoint another MB”.
As long as he is not corrupted!
Given what we know of Zuhdi now, his Whatsapp message revealing much about the mind of this man, I would not be surprised if he, like many more in PAS, approved of Khalid’s inaction on the Allah and the seized bibles issue.
What of the other issues, though?
I checked again two days ago with someone I trust in the Selangor state government.
“After the bank islam case settlement and the water mou, I don’t trust Khalid anymore”.
My thoughts, too.
But two days ago, Malaysianinsider reported that PKR sec-gen Saifuddin was despatched to see Nik Aziz to get him to change his mind about backing Khalid as MB.
Does Nik Aziz, like Zuhdi, perceive Khalid to be free of corrupt practices?
Is Nik Aziz, like the rest of us, being kept in the dark about the real reason for the move to unseat Khalid as MB?
Pakatan Rakyat, in both the Selangor and Penang state governments, post the 12th GE, came up with the “Competency, Accountability, Transparency”, or CAT, slogan.
Isn’t it time to be CAT with us on why this move to remove Khalid, that threatens to throw the Selangor state government into crisis and tear down Pakatan, is being played out?
Is it because of a less than CAT Khalid?
Or something else?
Don’t we, the rakyat, have a right to know?