I refer to your article Five EGM resolutions to oust Ong, return Chua. I learnt that Ong Tee Keat has called for an EGM of the General Assembly.

I'm not an MCA member. I'm a lawyer. I used to admire Chua's forthrightness and ability to speak up when he was the Minister of Health. Now, I prefer to dissect the controversy surrounding him purely from the legal perspective, based on what I read in the papers. Sure, there has been an outpouring of sympathy for the man, but I think there's a need to separate emotions from facts.

Chua's sex DVD case first surfaced in January 2008. Under tremendous public pressure, he quit as Minister of Health, as an MP and all party posts, although initially he had announced that there was no reason for him to step down.

As far as the layman is concerned, yes, he had 'paid the price'. A once high and mighty minister, who was used to the trappings of power, like being chauffer-driven and showered with VIP treatment everywhere, was reduced to a nobody.

But from the legal point of view, justice had not been served yet, because he had not been brought to book. If the CEO of a company swindled money and the external auditor found out, the CEO could not just wash his hands, quit his post and say: "I'm sorry, please forgive me".

True, the CEO who used to be driven around by a chauffer and earned tonnes of money now finds himself unemployed. But he had not paid the price for cooking the books yet. That, to me, is a fundamental legal principle.

Another issue is why the delay in meting out 'sentence' against Chua. I used to handle many criminal cases in court (now I let my junior staff take over). It is quite normal for justice to be served years, if not decades later.

A defendant must be given ample opportunity to defend him/herself. One is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, I think it is quite normal for Chua's disciplinary case to seemingly drag. In fact, the disciplinary proceedings against Chua was put on hold due to the party elections last year.

This reminds me of the disciplinary case against Isa Samad, the duly-elected Umno vice-president who was suspended for money politics some years back. I remember reports were lodged against him as early as 2003, but the Umno disciplinary board only came up with a verdict in 2005 - a process which took about two years. Action was taken against Isa too although he had been duly elected as the vice-president who garnered top votes.

As to the issue of Chua having been voted in by the delegates, we lawyers hold by the maxim that "one is innocent until proven guilty". When Chua stood for the MCA election last year, he was "innocent" under the MCA regulations. Now that he been found guilty, he had to go.

Similarly, a candidate with a criminal case pending can stand in the general election. In the 1995 general election, voters in Bukit Bintang elected Wee Choo Keong as their MP, although he had a contempt of court case pending, related to the BMF scandal. Not too long after the poll, the court found him guilty and removed him as the MP.

There is also the question of whether the sacking was too harsh. Yes, in law, one can argue about mitigating factors and judges do take them into account when meting out sentences. I guess Chua's seniority in MCA and vast contribution as a leader cuts both ways - it can be used to reduce sentence or it can be used against him.

Being a senior MCA leader and minister, he was expected to observe a higher standard of morality. And it didn't help that he said: "My only regret was to use the same hotel and same room with the same girl over and over again." And in Chua's case, obviously the disciplinary board took the latter stance.