DAP's accusations that MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong "did not raise questions during the Parliamentary briefing" and "was absent from the Malaysia-United States trade agreement session" are a deliberate distraction from the real issue, that is, the content and implications of the Malaysia-US Agreement on Reciprocal Trade.
As a member of Parliament, Dr Wee has both the right and the duty to question the government on matters of national sovereignty and economic security. The real concern lies in how the government explains and justifies the agreement's terms and certainly not the manner in which Dr Wee raises his questions. What matters are the government's answers, not political theatrics.
To date, the government has yet to provide Parliament or the public with a clear explanation. Does the agreement restrict Malaysia's ability to adjust its policies? Are there safeguards to protect national sovereignty and economic independence? Were businesses and MPs adequately consulted during negotiations?
DAP should focus on these substantive questions instead of criticising Dr Wee's approach. The issue is not whether Dr Wee asked his questions in Parliament but whether the government has truly protected Malaysia's interests. Attacking him for merely doing his duty is pure political theatre.
When Malaysians call for transparency, the government must respond with facts, not deflection. The central issue is the Agreement itself and its long-term impact on Malaysia's autonomy.
DAP leaders should cease applying double standards. Dr Wee's questions are legitimate and necessary. He is not alone. Even Pakatan Harapan leaders such as Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli (Pandan MP), Hassan Karim (Pasir Gudang MP) and Wong Chen (Subang MP) have also raised concerns about the same agreement. Yet DAP has remained silent on them. Why the selective criticism?
By targeting Dr Wee alone, DAP undermines rational debate and fuels public suspicion that the government may be concealing key details. If the agreement truly benefits Malaysia, why fear open questioning in Parliament? The more the government avoids scrutiny, the more doubts it creates.
A comparison with the US-Cambodia Agreement is telling. Article 5.1 of that deal explicitly ensures cooperation "in a manner that does not infringe upon Cambodia's sovereign interests", preserving its decision-making power. No such clause exists in the Malaysia-US Agreement.
This raises a crucial question: did our government truly defend Malaysia's interests? The full text of the Agreement must be made public so Malaysians can judge for themselves.
Malaysians support trade, but never at the cost of sovereignty or national dignity. Our nation's future must never be compromised or used as a political bargaining chip.
FROM DATUK LAWRENCE LOW
MCA vice president
MCA economic and SME affairs committee chairman
