Is MCA back in business?

By MT Webmaster Last updated Dec 31, 2013

In short, DAP’s problem is because of its internal party problem (just like what happened to Umno, which resulted in the party being deregistered). But will the Chinese blame the RoS or blame DAP that brought their internal squabble to the attention of the RoS and which forced the RoS to act against the party?

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

MCA has just gone for a leadership change and some say that this is going to improve the party’s image. Others say it does not matter what MCA does because nothing is going to help and that the party is finished.

MCA says that this is its last chance, do or die, and if it does not make it this time around that is going to be the end of the party. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak says that MCA needs a dose of political Viagra if it wants to stay alive while MCA replied that it does not need Viagra, 100 Plus will do fine.

So there appears to be mixed reactions regarding whether the leadership change in MCA is good for the party and whether it is going to ensure that the party survives. I really do not know what to predict because there are too many factors that influence the thinking of the voters.

Since the infamous general election of 1969 when the ruling coalition, the Alliance Party, almost got wiped out, we can see that the ‘Chinese seats’ ding-dong between MCA and DAP. Hence this is basically a tussle between two Chinese-based parties. When MCA goes up, DAP goes down, and vice versa.

In short, it is a fight between two Chinese-based parties for roughly 30 ‘Chinese’ seats now grown to about 40.

In 1969, MCA and DAP drew (13-13). Then Barisan Nasional was formed (which brought back stability to Malaysian politics) and, in spite of the introduction of the New Economic Policy, MCA won two-thirds of the ‘Chinese’ seats in 1974.

According to the Chinese voters, political stability is healthy for business. So they chose MCA over DAP, which was seen as a threat to stability (the race riots of 1969 being one example).

Hence the criteria needed to win the Chinese support would be a stable political environment, which would result in a healthy economic environment.

In 1978, MCA and DAP almost drew again. However, in 1982, MCA, again, won back slightly over two-thirds of the Chinese seats when Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was perceived as ‘pro-business’, took over as Prime Minister.

Again the Chinese said that the new Prime Minister is good for business. And, true enough, many Chinese and Indians made it big under Dr Mahathir’s patronage.

In 1986, DAP beat MCA because MCA was seen as not capable of defending Chinese interests regarding the Chinese schools issue. This issue, in fact, resulted in Operasi Lalang when many opposition leaders were detained without trial.

Most people were of the opinion that the Umno Youth-MCA Youth quarrel was merely a wayang (shadow play) to justify the detention of a few ‘troublesome’ opposition leaders (especially since the ‘main players’, Lee Kim Sai and Najib Tun Razak, were not also detained).

In 1990, Umno split into Umno Baru and Semangat 46 and the ‘splinter party’ worked with DAP. DAP was very careful in making sure that they worked with Semangat 46 only on the West Coast and not on the East Coast where Semangat 46 was working with PAS. So, again, DAP beat MCA.

In 1995, the economy was doing great so the Chinese swung back to MCA and, again, MCA won two-thirds of the ‘Chinese’ seats. This was repeated in 1999 in spite of the creation of a new opposition coalition called Barisan Alternatif.

When we asked the Chinese voters why they did not support the new opposition coalition they told us it was for economic reasons.

The same thing happened in 2004 when Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi took over as Prime Minister. They wanted to give the new Prime Minister a chance after 22 years of Dr Mahathir as Prime Minister.

Then came the 2008 disaster for MCA followed by the 2013 general election.

Now, why did the Chinese abandon MCA in 2008 and 2013? It cannot be because of corruption or issues regarding human rights because nothing much has changed all those years from the time the Chinese supported MCA. If corruption and human rights were issues to the Chinese, then DAP should have wiped out MCA back in 1999 or even in 2004.

I really do not know why and I can only say that the Chinese voters are very unpredictable. My only guess is that MCA was seen as not strong enough in many instances. First of all, it is not able to stand up to Umno. Secondly, MCA was suffering a lot of internal squabbles. Hence the Chinese did not think that MCA was a force to be reckoned with.

Are a corruption-free country and more freedom and human rights more important to the Chinese than a stable political and economic environment? Most of the older Chinese would say political and economic stability are more important while the younger Chinese would say corruption-free country and more freedom/human rights.

And if there are more young voters than older voters then I suppose they would choose DAP over MCA. Hence will the leadership change in MCA mean much to the Chinese voters, especially the younger generation?

Part of MCA’s downturn was because of the party’s internal problems. The Chinese cannot support a party in chaos. But what if DAP also becomes a party in chaos while MCA is now seen as a stable party?

I suppose then we will have to see in the next general election whether the Chinese will stay with DAP or swing back to MCA.

And DAP appears to be heading for a major internal problem regarding its party election in December 2012 and the re-election in September 2013. And this squabble between DAP and the Registrar of Societies (RoS) is the result of the anti-Lim Guan Eng faction in DAP.