Yum Cha: Battle between the old and new MCA
Khoo Kay Peng
DATUK Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek is half right about the leadership conflict in MCA. It is not about him or Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat.
It is not even a “class conflict” as claimed by his supporters. Dr Chua, a medical doctor, is hardly a grassroots leader.
It is a tussle between the old and new MCA. It is a tussle between a group of party leaders and members who want to keep the old political and business nexus alive which can be used to shelter tainted leaders and their wrongdoings and those who want the party to regain its political potency.
Some of us had poked fun at a few ex-leaders of the party for not being able to stand up against the excesses and arrogance of its coalition partner.
They were seen as carrying too much baggage to be able to do much without being told to shut up or risk their own personal scandals being exposed.
Ironically, some of the party leaders and delegates are striving to do exactly the same — reinstating morally tainted leaders back to the leadership hierarchy.
More than a thousand delegates may be enough to challenge the power equilibrium of the party.
But can they help to restore the battered image of MCA which has been long associated with its deep interest in the old patronage system?
Can these delegates help the party recapture the seats it lost in the last general election by continuing to hold on to the old MCA?
The involvement of past MCA leaders in the PKFZ fiasco is a prime example. So far, none of them has volunteered enough information to help with the investigation.
Can these tainted leaders project a solid moral authority to help ensure that this Government remains clean, honest and responsible?
Hence, the sacking of Dr Chua has given a chance for some leaders and members of the old network who were uncomfortable with the recent PKFZ expose to unite and pool together their resources in trying to return MCA back to its status quo.
The old MCA would have been able to continue to shield them from any further expose and prosecution.
Dr Chua was a good leader who was involved in a career-ending sex scandal. He calls it unfortunate, we call it tragic.
He should have accepted that the final curtain of his political career had drawn down.
He should be grateful that the party was ready to groom his son and had even allowed him to take over Dr Chua’s former parliamentary seat.
A writer asks “Can a minority of individuals punish a duly elected leader proven to have been forgiven, reflected by the voting support given to him by MCA central delegates despite them knowing the full background of Dr Chua’s controversy incident?”
Calling it an incident is a joke. But a larger question which must be asked by the members is whether the people can accept Dr Chua’s stewardship of MCA?
In the last general election, a number of leaders who had enjoyed unsurpassed support from their party grassroots were easily defeated by less prominent opponents.
Public perception is most crucial in politics. Politicians often ignore this fact at their own peril.
As a prominent leader, Dr Chua has to be fully aware of the power of perception and he must be brave enough to put his party’s interest before his.
His sex scandal does not dilute his political contribution to his state and country. But it has created a blot on his credibility which makes it detrimental for him to continue leading his party, especially in a country where some moral guardians cannot even tolerate a beer drinking model.
The current dispute between Dr Chua and Ong is very destructive to the party. However, the fault does not lie with the two leaders alone.
The disciplinary committee should not have allowed Dr Chua to contest in the last party election until he was fully cleared. They did not act in his best interest.
It would have been better for Dr Chua to be fully cleared of his offence before being allowed to make a political comeback. For this, we call it unfortunate. It was a comeback made too early.
