MCA’s ‘time-bomb’

PETALING JAYA: To political pundits, there is no element of surprise in witnessing the 64-year-old MCA embroiled yet again in another internal leadership tug-of-war; a party noted for its squabbling and power tussle.

Having divided MCA into factions and trouncing his predecessor Ong Tee Keat (eighth party president) via an EGM in March 2010, incumbent party president Dr Chua Soi Lek is currently spearheading another war against his deputy, Liow Tiong Lai.

A “time-bomb” is ticking in MCA.

In the last few months the simmering and deteriorating relationship between the two have erupted into a slanging match of warring words before exploding into an open confrontation.

This weekend on Oct 20, MCA will once again convene an EGM orchestrated by Chua; this time tagging a resolution accusing his deputy of disobedience and disloyalty along three other resolutions to reverse the party’s previous endorsement of a “no government post.”

FMT talks to former head of MCA’s research unit and FMT columnist Stanley Koh on some of the highlights of the coming event, taking a deeper insight to the Chua-Liow leadership row which has been dubbed as the unholy alliance. Their cohesiveness then had enabled them to oust Ong Tee Keat in the 2010 EGM.

FMT: What has been happening since the official announcement by Dr Chua early this month (Oct 3) of an extraordinary general meeting?

Koh: Well, to begin with, as soon as the election of central delegates ended, Chua played up his mind-game propaganda on the results, claiming he had majority of support from the divisional warlords in his pocket, particularly from the bigger MCA states. He projected the number game that those divisions with large population of elected delegates would be under the thumb of these warlords and hence, favourably be on his side.

Gauging the divisional results, his next move was then to call an EGM with the endorsement from his central committee line up which he has the control. Of course, he had done his ground work on previous occasions, like calling each divisional chairman personally, basically comprising old party warlords whom he can easily negotiate and deal comfortably in horse trading and bargaining in exchange for votes.

The delegates’ name list is in Chua’s control. Liow has demanded the list urging his president to ensure transparency and fair play. The purpose in obtaining the list is to identify the delegates for direct campaigning. For the whole of last week and this week, both the factional leaders have been campaigning and meeting delegates through dinner functions and in groups.

It is ironical that Chua has merely inserted the names of delegates in the party’s website but without contact addresses to prevent his deputy Liow the strategic advantage of contacting them. Pro-Liow supporters are accusing Chua’s hypocrisy for having made the similar complaint when he was denied the same when Chua challenged his predecessor for the presidency post in 2010.

There are also allegations emerging on peripheral-issues like phantom members and branches not following party procedures and guidelines in conducting their branch elections. But all these allegations are under the shadow of the bigger battle and hence, ignored.

Of course, since the official announcement, both factions are engaging sms messages, blogs and the media to carry out their respective campaigns. The recent highlight in the Star publication’s front-page demeaning his factional rival Liow’s character is a case in point of Chua’s unique way of expressing his earlier promise, non-interference in editorial policy.

FMT: What is the likely outcome of the four resolutions presented to the central delegates this weekend?

Naturally Chua is more confident than Liow as the deputy is facing an uphill task for lack of resources such as unavailability of a contact list of central delegates and the party’s headquarter controlled by Chua. More significantly, there is allegation that Chua, as part president, can even use party funds for his personal campaign.

The only optimistic chance of the first resolution being rejected, the one attempting to censure Liow, is in the hands of central delegates who may not be influenced by the powerful divisional chairmen acting as warlords supporting Chua.

Basically party delegates who are not influenced by greed and corruption of money politics, able to think or discern and are concerned about the party’s future. But don’t ask me how many there are because I am unaware except they probably belong to the younger generation as rank and file leaders.

The other three resolutions are likely to go through in reversing the earlier decision; hat is re-accepting government posts.

FMT: Again on the EGM, what if the censure resolution is passed? What will the implications be for Liow?

Liow has announced publicly that he and his team would still pursue for the presidency and other key posts later in December. But if the resolution is passed against Liow, the matter is not likely to rest there.

Known for his craftiness and gamesmanship, Chua may move a disciplinary action since he controls the numbers in the central committee line up and also appointees to the party’s disciplinary board. Just as the recent rumoured “leak” from a central committee meeting to sack Lee Hwa Beng, a former MCA Selangor state assemblyman, for campaigning against Chua.

FMT: Are there any other factors not in favour of Liow in his challenge against Chua?

Just recently, Chua challenged Liow to step down together with him. And similar views had also been published in the Chinese dailies, views of some Chinese community leaders expressing support for this move. To some, this seems to be an amicable “formula” which we witnessed during the Ling-Lim leadership crisis, where Dr Ling Liong Sik and his deputy Lim Ah Lek stepped down simultaneously in 2003 paving way for Ong Ka Ting and Chan Kong Choy to take over.

Objectively speaking, I think the same formula is not fair to Liow as he belongs to the second echelon and he has done no serious mistakes compared to Chua. He has not only tainted the party’s founding fathers’ legacy with his sex scandal but his three year presidency tenure has proven him to be a terrible leader. Despite his criticisms against Ka Ting and Tee Keat, Chua has brought MCA to its knees at the recent GE13.

Recently a few of his warlord supporters openly praised him for being vocal and his ability to handle Umno. In short, they want a “fighting cock” (cockerel game in Thailand). Hence, in comparison, Liow is meek, indecisive and a weak leader.

To recap my memory on MCA’s history…..party insiders at one time also compared Dr Ling to Lee Kim Sai. Kim Sai was vocal and Ling quiet. But years later, critics were proven wrong about Ling being meek and weak.

Interestingly when Ling faced a challenge from Kim Sai in 1995, the former president said, “I will not be drawn into a slanging match with Lee.” Political analyst deciphered that Ling was using the “ren” tactic; which in translation means patience, tolerance and forbearance in handling opponents.

FMT: Are you saying Chua’s accusations of Liow being weak and meek are not true?

I am saying that Chua is a psychiatrist and he is using psychology in his mind-game. Unfortunately he is full of perverted logic cockiness and fortunately he is short of much honesty. His recent remarks that if Liow takes over as president, he will lead the party to be like Gerakan; is a typical example of putting his foot in his own mouth.

In 2008 when he was sighted at the PJ police station and confronted by the press, he said he was there to meet a friend. He was there because of his sex scandal and the police wanted to record his statement.

Of course, he was completely honest when he said, “I’ve publicly admitted my weakness. At no time did I try to deny it. At no time did I say it looks like me and sounds like me but not me.” To many of his critics, this is his infamous statement from someone who has no inkling of feeling shame.

Chua’s leadership is no more acceptable and central delegates should wake up for the party’s future, if any. Even subtle signals are being sent from the party’s political master, Umno that this man must go.

FMT: In the event of this weekend’s EGM coming to pass, what is the likely development falling out from the current leadership impasse towards the December MCA elections?

A day in politics is too long. Anything can happen. Oct 20 and December is about two months’ away. That is a long time. But we know, Umno, after its own party election, will give focus and effort in resolving MCA’s problems.

It also depends on many factors and situations. Chua is of course playing his cat and mouse game.

Nobody except him knows whether he will defend his post. And even if he does and wins, will the power brokers in Umno allow him to sit through till the next general election?

In the event, he does step down, he will definitely dictate an election menu for the next line up, including his son Tee Yong for his political future.

Central delegates capable of thinking should ask themselves whether Chua’s move to dictate the next succession is indeed appropriate. Chua’s propaganda in attacking the opposition for being undemocratic in their election process suggests a paradox.

Here you have a president representing close to a million party members influencing the election process through party funds, promising benefits and posts, setting stumbling blocks and hurdles against his so-called own comrades and yet unashamedly claims MCA to be more democratic than the Opposition. He is becoming a laughing stock.

In summary, many within the party are beginning to realise the hypocrisy of Chua’s leadership and his broken promises made during his presidency campaign. He has now proven to leave a huge credibility gap between his words and deeds. He has no moral ground and not qualified in ensuring the party’s fate.