Kılıçdaroğlu: CHP shall be the first party; the election will end in the first round

CHP leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu met with reporters from various media outlets, including Diken, at the headquarters of his party.

Answering the reporters' questions during the meeting, Kılıçdaroğlu made assessments on issues ranging from the Table of Six to the Syria question, from the ongoing debate about refugees to Erdoğan's criticism of himself.

Kılıçdaroğlu remarked that the elections will end in the first round, and the 'nation alliance' shall win the majority in the parliament. Noting that the CHP has become the first party to overtake the AKP, Kılıçdaroğlu also elaborated on the upcoming meeting of the Table of Six on August 21st.

Kılıçdaroğlu gave the following answers to the questions posed by the reporters from various media outlets, including Diken:

Q - The next meeting of the Table of Six will be held on August 21st. What resolutions will be on the table that day? Shall we expect developments on the candidacy and other issues?

A- Every month, we convene thanks to the hospitality of a party leader. The agenda is always set ahead of the meeting, informing us about that agenda. We have not yet received the agenda for the upcoming meeting; however, the Chairperson of the Felicity Party, Temel Karamollaoğlu, visited us. He shared some of his thoughts and went on to visit other party leaders. We first hold such preliminary meetings and then determine the agenda accordingly. Therefore, one can expect the agenda to be disclosed in a day or two.

Turkey has so many pressing problems, so many burning issues. Every statement we make to the public, in a sense, underpins the coherence of thoughts that brings the alliance together. In other words, we are talking about the strengthened parliamentary system. We are explaining the actions we will take at the onset of the recovery process through the Damage Assessment Committee. In a way, we are also unveiling a manifesto. We are taking our cooperation to the next level at this very stage.

Q- You have published joint statements at the end of these meetings. The table has also been working on the migration question for some time. The Democracy and Progress Party (DEVA) released a report two days ago. The Future Party and yourself have made assessments on this topic. Either this very report or another text currently under consultation is expected to come before the table at its upcoming meeting. Yet, there is also a certain divergence of opinion. Voiced particularly by the Future Party… Can you possibly find common ground on this issue?

A - I believe so. We have already undertaken a joint study on this, and a working group is in place. The preliminary reports drafted by this group were presented to the leaders of the parties sitting at the table. The party leaders provided their approval. Now they shall sit down and talk about it. I do not expect a major problem or a significant divergence of opinion. Because the party leaders collectively want the Syrians who came to Turkey as refugees to return to their countries. Without hesitation.

"We propose a four-stage plan for the return of refugees"

There needs to be enabling conditions created for the return. With due consideration given to its human dimension and without grounding it on racism. It is imperative to create an atmosphere where they can peacefully live in their own country. We propose a four-stage plan in that regard.

We shall send the Syrians, yet our counterpart must be the legitimate government of Syria. Therefore, it is necessary to open the embassies with the legitimate government mutually, engage in negotiations , and subsequently ensure and guarantee their safety of life and property. For instance, our business people may create employment by setting up factories there…In fact, Syria already had factories in place; those factories must become operational again.

We are also aware that we have not received a strong public reaction to our statements on this issue. Everyone considers this reasonable.

'The West has to support refugees'

Every now and then, people wonder, "Why do we have to build houses, roads, and schools for them?". As a matter of fact, it is not us per se. Our contractors will build them with the financial assistance we receive from the European Union. The West also has a responsibility in this regard. If the West wants to stop migration influx from here to there, that is, to Europe, it has to give us this support.

During my conversations, I can observe their thoughts and concerns. "We shall transfer resources, but did you really use that resource for its intended purpose?" They should be briefed on this question periodically. They should be provided with information outlining "where and how much money we spent". And they can come and inspect if they wish so. They call for a transparent practice, and this is what we shall deliver anyway.

'They saw the mistake they made, albeit late'

The government seems to seek a rapprochement with the Syrian government. Though unrelated, Doğu Perinçek will also go for meetings in the coming days. What is your take on these steps?

I am the one who kept saying, right from the beginning, that the policy pursued in Syria was wrong. I am the one who, right from the beginning, has clearly uttered, "What you are doing is wrong". I am the one who has spoken out in favour of maintaining good relations with neighbours. Moreover, I am the one who wrote a letter to the government, calling them to "organize an International Syria Conference in Turkey". At that time, Erdoğan responded by asking me, "How are we going to do the Syria conference?" Upon this question, I did write a letter outlining how the conference could be held and what topics could be discussed. Yet it didn't work; this being the case, we did organize the International Syria Conference. Many countries attended, including the United States and Russia. They watched the conference, by the way. They realize their mistake, albeit a little too late and too costly. They are now trying to test the ground for building relations.

It was the intelligence officers who made the first contacts. However, we are not an intelligence state but a democratic state. When negotiating with a country, you should ask the ambassadors to meet one another. It would help if you considered the reciprocal opening of embassies. Intelligence agencies may always make contacts, yet it is pivotal for you to pursue relations with Syria on a healthier ground. We would only be pleased if they did so. At least, it would be a crucial learning curve for not repeating the mistakes made. But at what cost? At the expense of thirty-three of our soldiers, many civilians who lost their lives, 3 million 600 thousand Syrians who came to Turkey, and Turkey experienced a severe trauma...

'We all know how the ISIS members ended up there.'

In social terms, the government has caused numerous problems such as occasional incidents occurring especially in areas with Syrian inhabitants and the emerging fact that their presence in Turkey may become permanent.

We want to ensure the return of Syrians in agreement with the official administration. We have a proverb, "don't bite off more than you can chew" . So now you have to come face-to-face with the person whom you once embraced and later kept insulting behind his back till yesterday.

Who is responsible for the martyrdom of our thirty-three soldiers and the great tragedies experienced there? History will undoubtedly write that. Creating a climate of reconciliation is a good step, but not enough; those who are responsible for causing this fight in the first place should be held accountable, they should publicly apologize and acknowledge the fact by saying "We made a mistake. We have devastated the lives of many of our people, including Syrians."

We all know more or less how ISIS militants ended up there, how they were financed, and how they meddled in Syria's internal affairs. So, therefore, let the relations improve, we have no objections. Let our Syrian brothers and sisters return to their own countries. Yet, the political establishment needs to sit down, and make a reckoning, particularly those who run the state, they need to apologize to the citizens of the Republic of Turkey.

'It's not even clear who the minister is.'

Q- The Table of Six also includes a party leader, Ahmet Davutoğlu, who has pursued this policy in the past. We also know that he advocates similar views today. Davutoğlu said in a statement that Putin directed President Erdoğan. Davutoglu also noted, "If the immigrants leave without the regime changing certain policies in Syria, ten times more will come." Could this create a problem regarding the pledges made by the Table of Six regarding immigrants?

A- I don't think there will be a problem at this point in time. Who does not know that Erdogan is directed by imperial powers! We all well know which imperial power has wanted entry into Syria. There must be a certain reason why immediately showed up in Moscow when our thirty-three soldiers were martyred.

All this disaster came before us due to the inactivation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. You have completely disabled the foreign ministers with long-standing traditions, who safe keep the memory of the state, and formulate the foreign policy of the state. You forged a foreign policy with a handful of people in the palace. It is not even clear who the minister is! Is Hulusi Akar the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Is İbrahim Kalın the Minister of Foreign Affairs? Who is it then? Is it Mevlut Cavuşoğlu? Whenever there is a certain event unfolding concerning foreign affairs, it is either the spokesperson of the President or someone else making a statement. To the best of my knowledge, in customary state practice, it is the spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that make a statement about such an event. This is how it is practised in Russia, the United States, Japan, and Canada. In our case, everything has been dismantled and devastated. Reputable institutions of the state, in a sense, have been completely disabled. A certain circle at the palace has brought Turkey to this point, flauntingly purporting, "We shall design the foreign policy, we shall look after it".

They have come to see through it only now. If they have seen it through with their own will, at least they would not repeat it. But if they have done so, upon instruction from outside telling them, "You will now go and shake hands",; then this is something different, it is a sad picture.

'It is in the best interests of Turkey to act in line with the alliance'

Amid all these issues, Russia has just announced that a second contract was signed for the S-400. The Presidency of Defence Industries has denied it, yet it is evident that both the S-400 question as well as all that happened in Akkuyu are at stake. Do you see any links between the two?

If you are in a formal alliance as a state, if you have undersigned the rules stipulated by that alliance - pledging "I shall also apply it in my own country" if you have made a promise on behalf of the honour of the state; it is not right to seek different pursuits outside of that alliance. You are in the NATO alliance. It is highly appropriate and all fine that our defence industry is built on this.

NATO holds its meetings, where decisions are taken unanimously. If you enter a different defence industry outside the alliance, there will be problems. They went on and bought the S-400. I kept asking, "Against whom are you going to use it? Are we going to use it against Greece? Within the NATO alliance! Will you use it against Syria? There are Russians out there who are much stronger. Will you use it against Iran? There has not been a single problem since Kasr-ı Şirin . Will you use it against Russia? It is the one that gave you this weapon in the first place. Why did you buy it? What did you pay with it? What 'price' did you pay for it?" We are yet to receive the answers to these questions. Afterwards, the defence industry experienced many problems concerning producing F-16, F-35, and spare parts here in Turkey. Therefore, it is in the best interests of Turkey to act together, and in line with the alliance, it is part of for the sake of its own defence.

Within the NATO alliance, decisions are taken unanimously. If something appears to be against the interests of your country, you can always say, "No, I am against it." If you assert "I am against" while in Turkey and then go there and undersign it, then it means you cannot govern the state. When you go there if the sovereign powers or certain people convince you to put your signature, why on earth are you speaking out in Turkey? We have so many dilemmas similar to this case.

'Everyone knows that the gang of five smuggled money'

Q- In your statement the other day, you said "The gang of five is smuggling money abroad". Can you unpack this a little more?

A- They own huge mansions in London; they have all the means and opportunities, and they have businesses. They keep most of the money abroad anyway. We all know this, in fact, the whole world knows this. By the way, they themselves do not deny this either; they won't say "We do not take money abroad". Namely, what they say is as follows: "If the Erdoğan family takes out , we will do it too". Doesn't the Erdoğan family take out money? It did so. We raised this issue as the Isle of Man unfolded, and we disclosed the bank receipts. The bank did not dismiss it either, they did not say "These receipts do not belong to us". But they simply phoned the judge, assigned special-duty judges, and sentenced me to pay compensation…This still persists. I have disclosed a bank receipt; the bank that issued the receipt has not said "These receipts do not belong to us.

Now that they are taking out , others are doing it too. They are seeking their future and security abroad. They take the money out there. I do not know how much they took away, but I do know that this state is well aware of it.

Q- Do you see this as a preparation for a possible flight?

A- There may be more than one reason. It would not be right to call it a preparation for a possible flight, ruling out other options. They do invest abroad, so they make consider taking their investments abroad. They may wish to settle abroad. They may feel more secure there. They may take their money, their cash there. They may shift their investments there.

Normally, a person would invest in their own country and ensure the growth and development of their own country. If they are going to invest from abroad, there needs to be a coordination of the investments abroad and the domestic investments. Foreign investments should be made, most certainly; yet the savings made there should also come to Turkey.

Q- I want to ask a related question here. Back in June, we made a news report saying that the circles you are naming as 'the gang of five were trying to reach out to you, sending intermediaries. You confirmed this report in July on Twitter. Does this situation continue? Who were the intermediaries, and do they still come and go?

A- Intermediaries cannot be disclosed now. But no, it did not continue after that tweet.

'They somehow marketed the exam questions to each other'

Q- There was an ongoing public debate about the Public Personnel Selection Examination (KPSS), and then we witnessed a similar discussion about the police exam. Can we get your thoughts on exam security and the Student Measurement, Selection, and Placement Centre (ÖSYM)?

A- What previously happened was a sad picture that resulted from Erdogan's appointments. Later on, some new names were assigned. They did not give the job to those who are competent, they simply brought someone and made them sit there. They somehow marketed those exam questions to each other. And the exams took place.

The sad thing here is that even though there has already been a report flagging that the exam questions may be stolen, and honest bureaucrats of the state have drafted such a report, they swept it under the rug. Then the truth came out. When this became a big issue, too big for Erdoğan to cover up himself, he first dismissed and then ordered an investigation.

Nothing will ever happen. You will see it yourselves, after all, they will punish one or two people as a mere formality, and then end the case.

If you bring unmeriting people to certain places in the bureaucracy, those people will only fulfil the demands of those who brought them to those seats, not the requirements of the law. What follows is decay and decline. The one who brings these people to these positions is also the one who instructs them to "Ask these ". This does not happen without the knowledge of the government. It is not the case. This state has such intelligence. The state knows how all these mechanisms were devised, who was appointed, and who spoke what. Yet, these are put before the public in all their details within a certain period of time.

Speaking of bureaucracy, we have heard you saying "The heart of the state is still beating". Nowadays, when we talk to some of your party cadres, we notice that the phrase 'the heart of the state has gained currency. What is the heart of this state? There should also be certain bureaucrats who deliver documents to you…

You cannot destroy the legacy of a republic of hundred years in twenty years. They have tried to destroy it. They have made such an attempt, starting with the ministries, dismantling vital institutions and completely dissolving certain crucial institutions that we define as the academy of the state.

Institutions with the most distinguished bureaucrats of the state, such as the Board of Finance Inspectors and the State Planning Organization, were completely disbanded, dismantled, and the state bureaucracy was forced into mediocrity.

'There are bureaucrats who do not sign documents that will put the state in a difficult situation'

Even the qualified bureaucrats have been humiliated. For instance, they have called the ambassadors' mon cher'. In other words, they have humiliated the ambassadors by implying that the latter "doesn't understand anything". They have been thrown on the scrap heap. Instead, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent certain names, who have no connection whatsoever to replace them. We have experienced such situations in bureaucracy. Look at the people they have appointed as ambassadors. Despite all this, there still remain highly respected bureaucrats within the state who perform their duties diligently, without putting their signatures under adverse documents that would put themselves or the state in a difficult situation. These are the very heart of the state, and this heart is still beating. Yet, they have descended on the bureaucracy like a spectre. They have completely disarrayed the bureaucracy. They started doing so with the Ministry of National Education, and then came the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; they swept all over the place.

'They cannot deliver justice'

Let me give you an example, according to the law on judges and prosecutors, if a judge or prosecutor runs for the election and fails to win, they cannot return to their duty. Even if they run as independent candidates, without running from a political party list, if they can't get elected, they cannot go back . Regardless of this legal provision, they allowed examinations after July 15th ; they got on board the party chairs, the members of the party's executive board, namely all AKP members, and made them judges and prosecutors. It is against the spirit of the law. A person who has taken the exam, passed it, and has served as a judge for a certain period of time, cannot return if they do not get elected, even if running as an independent candidate. Yet, you pick someone from the party, you assign them to the key positions. They cannot deliver justice. They have no chance of delivering justice. Appointments made to the Constitutional Court, appointments to the Court of Cassation, appointments to key positions in places such as Ankara, İstanbul, and Izmir, and appointments of special-duty judges in a bid to find an answer to the question "How can we convict the CHP executive"... Most recently, they have appointed for our İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality mayor. They also assign for my pending claims for compensation. They make such assignments for the cases of other friends too.

Here is how it works. They look into a case, and then say, "We have to take this case and there should be a conviction" If the judge is a decent one, deciding according to the rule of law and his/her conscience, then they say "This one is useless to us". They bring there a militant judge they know. Militant judges are already looking up. They are doing what they are instructed to do so. This is striking a major blow to justice.

Despite all this, there are still judges within the justice mechanism who decide according to the rule of law and their conscience. These can be found at all levels, from the bottom to the top. They are now waiting in their corner, yet when the time comes, they shall be holding the posts they deserve.

'I was proven right by the ECHR, I will get 13 thousand euros '

Q- Do you know the exact amount of compensation you have to pay or have paid to Erdoğan against his claims?

A- I would never calculate it, I do not know. Under normal circumstances, morally, compensation payment should be asked for after the final judgment. But of course, they cannot wait until the final judgment. Because if they wait to see, I shall win the case. So, as soon as they win the case in the lower court, they immediately ask me to "Pay the money". This being the case, we go to the court's cashier and deposit it. And once we win the case, we take it back. By the way, most recently, I was proven right in the European Court of Human Rights, so I shall receive13 thousand euros .

Q- The Felicity Party Chairperson Temel Karamollaoğlu made a statement, expressing his opinion that due to the amendments introduced to the electoral law, The Table of Six has lost its prominence. What is your assessment of this? If the Table of Six is going to have any significance, when will this be the case?

A- According to the previous electoral law, the cast votes were registered in the name of a political party. Then they amended the law. Votes are no longer registered in the name of a party. Previously, the surplus votes would bring a certain advantage to the respective alliance. That surplus would benefit both alliances. And once the votes cast abroad are added, we would lose certain MPs, and they would lose certain MPs as well. We would win in certain aspects, but they would also win.

Now that the electoral law is amended, surplus votes are no longer applicable. This is what Mr Karamollaoğlu wants to raise and emphasize. Otherwise, Mr Karamollaoğlu is also well aware of how important the Table of Six is.

Q- DEVA Party Chairperson Ali Babacan has pointed to a preliminary coalition agreement. How do you see a preliminary coalition agreement for both the announcement of the candidacy and the formation of an alliance? By the way, Temel Karamollaoğlu also said that the coalition would be formed after the election…

A- How can you possibly form the government without an election? That can only happen after the election. Yet, every statement we publish today in a sense serves as the election manifesto of the alliance. The public statement drafted and undersigned by the leaders of all six parties is an election manifesto in its own right. At the same time, these documents also demonstrate the coherence of the alliance as well as its commitments and pledges, helping us explain to the public what the alliance will do when it comes to power. When you piece all these documents together, you can see a very promising roadmap offering a bright future for Turkey. You can also see a draft government manifesto emerging from these documents. Each meeting brings us such benefits. For instance, we may focus on the economy at one meeting, while elaborating on bureaucracy at another one; we may work on the parliamentary system at one meeting while discussing the amendments to be introduced to the constitution and the rules of procedure of the parliament at the next one. When you piece them together, you will find holistic logic and practice. Once all the leaders of the six parties give their approval, it will become the joint manifesto and roadmap of these six leaders. In later stages, this will also enable us to build a common language. We will all become leaders who stand for the same things.

Q- One of the criticisms levelled against the Table of Six both by the ruling party circles or by those opposing you is as follows: 'Six parts, six different views. In other words, there is a certain criticism, arguing that fragmented and cannot be trusted. What is your assessment of these comments?

A- They have built their politics based upon old habits. The new understanding of politics entails analyzing and having an accurate reading of what your opponent says in the first place. It would not be right to talk through your hat without having such a proper analysis. It seems that they have failed to do an accurate reading in this particular case as well. I wish they would read our proposed text on the transition to a strengthened parliamentary system. I wish they would then listen to and read about the work of the Deputy Chairpersons of parties on election security. There is coherence in all of them. We truly and genuinely want to rebuild a state structure that has regrettably loosened all the screws.

'There is a dire need to rebuild the country'

We are talking about a process of institution-building. We want new institutions to be established and created. Our unison is not a random one. They still fail to understand this. They are not even aware of what they have done to Turkey, how they have harmed and disrupted the turning of its wheels. Because they have something else in their mind. They do not think about the people. The only thing those in power are occupied with right now is their own future and money. There is nothing else they think of. We, on the other hand, think of the country. There is a dire need to rebuild the country. We want to completely change the existing mindset which has undermined the universities, independent institutions, education system, and foreign policy, which has always worked against the interests of Turkey, causing great damage. Therefore, they are not in a position to understand us. In order to understand, they need to think first. Yet, they do not feel the need to think. For it is only one person that does the thinking. Those who rent out their minds cannot do politics. They have rented out their reason.

There is a fire in Istanbul, and they say, "The fire was extinguished upon the instruction of our President". They are in such a position that they cannot even put out the fire without instructions. The Minister of Forestry also said, "We are putting out wildfires upon the instruction of our President". In other words, if the instruction does not come, the forests will keep blazing and they will keep watching. Are you able to see how far things can go when reason is rented out? They have already gone that far.

'We will get a majority in the parliament

Q- What outcome will we see on the election night both in terms of the parliament and your candidate? Will the election end in the first round?

A- The parliamentary arithmetic works in our favour. And this picture is only getting clearer each day. The Republican People's Party is already ahead of the AKP. This will continue by gaining more momentum in the coming period. We will get a majority in the parliament. We will also get the majority as the nation alliance. Our aim, which is to be collectively formulated by the six-party leaders, is to revive the strengthened parliamentary system within a certain period of time and to make the broken wheels work again.

The candidate is yet to be determined, but we will surely win the presidency in the first round.

Q- There will also be a transition period after the election. During this transition period, will the President retain any powers, duties, and vice-presidency or not? Are these matters discussed in the Table of Six?

A- We have not discussed these matters yet, but we certainly will do so. At the moment, each party is conducting its own study on these matters. Once these studies ripen, once the party members come to the leaders and say "We are ready now, we can talk about it", we will come to the table and discuss.

Q- What will your policy be in this respect? Have you finalized your preparations for that end? Can you share them?

A- We also meet and discuss these matters among ourselves. We are not holding these discussions with our MPs only, we also receive support from outside, from academic circles. What should the transition process look like? What should we do during this process? What priorities should we have? What decrees should we issue first, and what decrees should follow next? Six parties will work together in this endeavour; therefore we also contemplate on what should be the priorities and goals of all six parties. Most likely, the other parties also see and think of the process in this way. They are also working on it. We are waiting for this exercise to mature. Once it is ripe enough, we will come together and share it with the public again.

Q- What will be the first action of the candidate of the Table of Six when elected?

A- The very first action to be taken by the candidate will be determined by the leaders sitting at the Table of Six. I say this sincerely. Whatever I am talking to you here, I need to talk the same with the six leaders. If we talk differently here and there, it will shatter the trust we have built so far. I have no right to do this. No one has such a right. There may be different opinions. As a matter of fact, the Deputy Chairpersons sat with us to discuss the strengthened parliamentary system, and when we told them "We like to do it this way", they responded, "It will not really work out like this, it would be better if it is done this way". We pondered upon this and concluded that it would indeed be better, so we said yes. This is how we resolved this issue. It is all about goodwill. So when you set out with good intentions, you get results.

"Banning means 'I can't rule"

Q- Turkey's access ban on Deutsche Welle and Voice of America continues. Can we also learn your take on this?

A- If a political power sees the media as something to be afraid of, it means that it does not want to face the facts. It is the duty of the media to cover any events of social interest that the political power must-see, yet cannot see. As such, the presence of media would benefit political power the most. Any reasonable administration would address it this way. There would be independent media, which could easily cover and raise my mistake. And I would not repeat that mistake. Perhaps there is a major incident somewhere, that I am not aware of. And the media can quickly pick it up and bring it to the agenda. And we will take action there immediately. Bans have never brought advantages to any political power. In fact, banning points to the beginning of the loss process on the part of the political power. If you are introducing bans, then it implies the following: "I can't rule the country anymore, please don't talk about my mistakes, shortcomings, corruption, and nepotism".

Whether you like it or not, you will face the truth no matter how bitter it is. In fact, the media offers a space where political power faces the reality. The larger the space, the more comfortable the political power will feel. But if you narrow it down or ban it, the truth is reduced to a rumour campaign, a bush telegraph. A bush telegraph is a medium that not a single political power or ruling party would ever like to have. Yet, they are pushing for it.

Q - There are so many journalists who had to leave Turkey. Will these journalists be able to return to Turkey in your prospective government?

A - They will be able to return easily. And they will be able to criticize us easily too.

Q- Erdogan is paying a visit to a cemevi , perhaps for the first time. Later on, he went to Hacı Bektaş as well. Prior to that, there had been some attacks . Do you see this as a mere election campaign visit? Or is there a deliberate attempt to cause tension and Erdoğan is intervening ? Because there are two different views on this issue.

A- Former presidents of the Republic would make these visits anyway. Ahmet Necdet Sezer would pay such visits, and Süleyman Demirel would make such visits too…Erdoğan was not visiting, though. This time, he did make a visit. The fact that he made such a visit , and gave warm messages to the community is something positive. I have nothing to oppose. I only wish it could be permanent.

We used to go to Mevlana too. I would go there too. He would come as well. We used to give speeches that would match that place's spirit. But when I gave a speech , they abandoned Mevlana . They also stopped the ceremonies. This is the reason why we are faced with this travesty today.

It could be Mevlana , Ahi Evran, or Hacı Bektaş Veli. All these prominent figures give us ample opportunities and space to bring politicians closer to society. These occasions serve as important platforms where politicians should give messages of reconciliation to society.

'Erdoğan is not someone to be taken seriously.'

Q- The President has lashed out at you for not opening a single hospital when you were serving as the Director General of the Social Security Institution (SGK). What is your take on this?

A- What strikes me the most is that he seems to be clueless about how bureaucracy works. It is an independent institution, and it is making investments. It is indeed the Social Security Institution that has built Turkey's largest hospitals; this tradition has already existed before I assumed office at this institution. This continued during my post too. But, as I have said, Erdoğan is totally clueless. He speaks in his inner world. He is not someone to be taken seriously.

We have built many hospitals, we have laid many foundations. We did all of this through public procurement. I am the only Director General who submitted all the tender documents to the Grand National Assembly's Committee on State Economic Enterprises. At that time, there was a specific debate at the Parliamentary Committee on State Economic Enterprises, and we literally sent them a truckload of tender documents and said, "Here you go, conduct your inquiry. And if we have any wrongdoing, disclose it". They prepared their report and concluded, "There is nothing ". Well, of course, there was nothing . If they would have found anything, they would have made a great fuss about it.