Oct 11, 09 1:12pm
The dramatic outcome of yesterday's MCA EGM has placed the party in a dilemma over its leadership succession and perhaps set it on a course of greater uncertainty.
But the 'booting' out of both Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek is an opportunity for the MCA to start afresh, washing away the bad vibes caused by the acrimonious Ong-Chua relationship.
Former MCA HQ research and planning department head Stanley Koh talks to Malaysiakini about the outcome of the EGM and its implications on the party's leadership.
Malaysiakini: Were the central delegates caught by surprise on the outcome of the vote?
Koh: Both camps had expected a definitive outcome, meaning the winner takes all. Both were caught by surprise.
But if you look at the actual outcome, it is a composite voting pattern, mostly motivated by individual or local grouping interests.
In fact, the EGM campaigning was no different from the previous party election campaigns - it involved horse trading and promises of party posts and political promises.
Do you think the delegates had exercised their voting preferences with wisdom?
The outcome of the voting results can hardly be attributed to any one single factor. But the most important consideration, I think, is that the delegates had learned a lesson. Perhaps, you can call it wisdom - by not repeating the same scenario in placing Ong as president and Chua as deputy.
On the first resolution, 1,155 delegates voted for a no-confidence motion against Ong for his leadership with a razor-thin majority of 14 votes, while 1,141 voted otherwise.
In short, the delegates had conveyed a strong message to Ong for disrespecting the delegates' choice at the previous party elections. His arrogance and high-handedness did not win him much sympathy at the delegates' level.
In accepting Chua back as a member, and over-ruling whatever disciplinary actions prompted by Ong, 1,204 delegates probably felt that Ong had unjustly punished Chua over the DVD sex episode.
But on the other hand, 1,184 delegates also voted against Chua being given back his deputy president's post.
Was the 'cai dan' (voting menu) used this time round?
While there is no doubt that 'cai dan' (voting menu) was still used as a methodology to ensure bloc voting by certain states, there was no change in the traditional practices of courting or lobbying for votes - alleged horse trading, negotiations and promises for posts and positions were engaged in the EGM campaigning.
Some delegates admitted the 'cai dan' method was used, but this time round, it was different as the voting was much simpler, based on three resolutions.
What does the tally of votes tells us?
We have to remember that Chua had the disadvantage of campaigning without a government post and all the perks and facilities compared to the Ong's top supporters within his camp.
Yet, the sympathy factor in favour for Chua had been quite solid which was about 1,250 votes despite only 921 signatures were handed over to party officials when petitioning for an EGM.
There were allegations of money politics from Ong's camp but no police report was lodged nor was there clear proof of such practices.
One telling sign on the deliberately drawn-out campaign was that the incumbent leadership had shouted for reforms within the party but its tactics and approaches adopted failed to convince that values and integrity were part of these practices.
Nonetheless, one important feature of the outcome was that the delegates had booted both Ong and Chua out.
In fact, the outcome of this EGM showed Ong and Chua had no particular advantage over the other.
I would like to think that perhaps the voting results reminded us of a Chinese idiom, 'Kung dao cai ren xin'. (Justice lies in the hearts of men). In this case, the votes of the delegates had shown their sense of fair play, and also their disappointment, towards both Ong and Chua.
Do you think there was a 'third force' voting bloc which influenced the voting outcome?
Except for some party watchers who believed there was a 'third force' voting bloc, as reported a couple of days before the EGM, the majority of delegates had ruled out the influence of such a group.
But I'm inclined to accept the fact that the results were rather a personal judgement of individual delegates who felt that both Ong and Chua should leave the party leadership and translated this sentiment through their voting preferences.
Some political observers felt that the 50-50 split between Ong and Chua was affected by individualistic voting pattern among thinking delegates who did not follow any voting menu and had played an vital role in determining the final outcome.
What is the immediate implication of the results, in particular the vote of no-confidence against the president?
From the very beginning, several delegates acknowledged that there was an undercurrent of discontent working against the president over a range of grouses. But the long campaigning period helped Ong to address them and gave him an edge.
There were rumours of betting activities in favour of Ong from RM10 against the odds of RM1,000 for Chua, but it narrowed considerably closer to the EGM date. But I doubt, the betting had any influence on the final outcome.
In fact, the resolution of no-confidence against the president had caused much anxiety among Ong's core supporters. But now that the resolution had been passed, the onus is on the president to make his next move.
What do you think will be Ong's next move?
Constitutionally, he need not resign from the post but there is the moral argument that he should abide by the public pledge he made. He had said he would step down even without a two-third majority vote from the delegates.
Of course, his supporters would encourage him to stay. There are also those who say that if he is genuinely concerned about reforms within the party, he should set an example.
There were 1,155 votes expressing no confidence in him as against 1,141. Clearly, slightly more than half the total delegates of 2,304 have no confidence in his leadership.
Is this the first time in history an elected MCA president has faced a no-confidence motion? What are the alternatives in the leadership succession?
Ong is the first elected president to face this infamous no-confidence resolution for his perceived failed leadership.
Should Ong step down, he will be the second shortest-serving elected president after Tan Koon Swan (right), who also belongs to the Hainanese clan, having served less than six months before he resigned due to the Pan El financial issue.
If Ong resigns, he will create a vacuum given the fact that the deputy presidenct's post also needs to be filled, and there are two options available.
A precedent was set during the Ling Liong Sik-Lim Ah Lek crisis when the central committee, in accordance with Article 40, appointed Ong Ka Ting and Chan Kong Choy - both from the central committee - as president and deputy respectively.
This move could be made and whoever elected among them could hold office until the next party elections.
The other alternative, under Article 41, is for two-third or more of the elected central committee to resign and a fresh party elections be immediately called.
The question is: If a fresh election is called, will it unite or further split the party?
Which is likely to happen?
I think we should not jump the gun. The ball is at the president's feet and we just have to wait for his next move and see if he steps down.
In view of the Umno top leadership's anxiety to see MCA resolving this problem, I don't think Ong will prolong the discussion on the leadership succession problem at the central committee level.
Do you see the unity factor within the party a hindrance to resolving this leadership succession issue?
Recently, remarks were made by certain leaders saying there was no split in the presidential council and central committee and thus, there was no crisis. They claimed they stood united during the EGM campaign and therefore there was no problem.
But they forgot the sleazy EGM campaign which I considered to be the dirtiest in the party history. The grassroot was split by the campaign and the voting count reflected this divisiveness. Maybe some smart leaders considered unity at the presidential council and central committee levels more important than at the grassroot level.
You mentioned that the EGM campaign was the dirtiest. Why was this so?
I have seen several major leadership crises since the era of Tan Koon Swan versus Neo Yee Pan. Firstly, past confrontations were essentially issue-driven even during Ling Liong Sik versus Lim Ah Lek (below) particularly over the Nanyang purchase issue.
However, the recent EGM campaign involved personality clashes, and blogs and cyber troopers dwelt on character assassinations and the humiliation of rival personalities. Accusations were freely thrown around without proof.
It lent credence to 'yi dai pu ru yi dai' (current generation of leaders is worse off than the previous generation).
Never before had a party president been investigated by the anti-corruption agency, involved in a lawsuit and the lodging police reports in the run-up to the party EGM or an election campaign.
The recent EGM campaign has done more damage to the party, and public confidence has been further eroded as reflected in blogs written by ordinary Malaysians.
The propaganda in blogs, websites, party-controlled news apparatus had gone overboard and generated a backlash from the public. Even party veterans I met had expressed disgust over the campaigning tactics weeks before the EGM.
