MCA's date with deja vu

History, it seems, is repeating itself in the MCA.

The party, BN's second largest component, is making news headlines for the wrong reasons following the sacking of Dr Chua Soi Lek as deputy president and this includes stripping him of his party membership as well.

The 10-month disquiet since the Oct 18 MCA's elections was marked by the occasional pot-shots and open squabbling between Dr Chua and his political boss, MCA president cum Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat which finally erupted into an open confrontation, spinning the MCA into another abysmal leadership crisis.

Even at this moment, the open campaigning for support for central delegates and pre-emptive moves made by the factions led by Ong and his rival Chua are threatening to split the party into two.

Former senior researcher Stanley Koh talks to Malaysiakini on the controversial issues and current happenings surrounding the Ong-Chua leadership dispute.

He also talks about the calls for two EGMs, gives an insight into the political implications and likely fallout from the current standoff.

Below is the interview with Stanley Koh:

Malaysiakini: Currently, the possibility of two extraordinary general meetings (EGMs), one to be organised by president Ong Tee Kiat and the other by his former deputy Chua Soi Lek, are making news headlines. What do you think will happen?

Koh: I understand that the EGM to be organised by the president or the Ong's faction is likely to be held on a Sunday, September 27 this month although there is no official announcement yet.

It was reported that the secretary general Wong Foon Meng had mentioned that he had led a meeting in the party headquarters. Those who had attended were likely to have comprised the deputy secretary, national organising secretary, treasurer general or his deputy, forming the core administrative people of appointed officials in the party headquarters.

Previously two possible dates were tossed up, either on the 13th or 27th of this month. Some of the cited reasons have been openly reported on the date selection.

One reason given was that the incumbent president has to complete his briefing to the MCA states which will take his schedule to the middle of this month.

I heard Ong will be briefing the Wilayah KL next Tuesday, on Sept 8th.

Other considerations on the specified date are based on compliance to the stipulated provisions of MCA Constitution related to the EGM.

But above all, I don't disagree with some views that Ong's calling his own EGM is a pre-emptive move to Chua's earlier call for one.

Do you think Chua's side will submit an agenda this Friday (Sept 4) which will indicate they agree to a common EGM?

I will be very surprised if they do comply with the deadline. I think they will ignore the request.

Why? Wouldn't it save a lot of inconvenience and time particularly for the central delegates as some of Ong's key supporting leaders were arguing?

There is nothing in the party constitution prohibiting two EGMs.

Some argued that it happened during Tan Koon Swan's time when he fought against Neo Yee Pan.

Yes, there were two EGMs then but I must stress here that the EGMs were addressing different issues under very different circumstances.

It was supervised by a professional audit company under the jurisdiction and arbitration of the High Court. I think it is pointless for me to go into the past details.

What I am trying to point out simply is that in a dispute such as this, there is little trust between the disputing parties involved. If there is further dispute, who is going to arbitrate or make a fair judgement?

Don't forget the matter cannot be brought into court, no thanks to the former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir for leaving behind this legacy.

I think the concern against holding two EGMs is irrelevant. I would rather focus on the implications and the outcome.

What do you mean? Can you elaborate briefly on the implications?

I am sure some of you will agree the whole scenario of holding an EGM is a dicey affair. It could end up with a Catch-22 scenario, with neither side getting a two-thirds majority or getting about 1,600 votes to endorse a resolution.

What happens then?

Both opposing sides are chasing a fixed number of central delegates which numbers about 2,400.

Chua's side is playing a very careful, tight-lid and strenuous exercise. All those central delegates petitioning an EGM must also be backed up by a statutory declaration.
Ong's side is merely calling an EGM using his executive prerogative powers in the constitution.

Unless he uses the same approach getting a signature petition, in black and white, Ong cannot really determine his level of support by simply playing the "numbers game".

Of course, you can argue that all those who agree to sign the petition (on Chua's side) may not be necessarily aligned or eventually support Chua's resolutions.

Contrary, to all purposes, Chua could be using the statutory declaration which may clearly state the delegate in no uncertain terms supports his resolution.

Vice versa, those who attend Ong's EGM may not vote in favour or endorse the sacking of Chua or support the incumbent president's resolutions. It is a double-edged sword, really working both ways and until the ballot papers are counted, we never really know.

But one thing is reassuring, the secretary general has openly pledged that he would be fair to both factional EGMs but that remains to be seen.

How does the "numbers" game work out in the fight for support?

This is in a way quite different from the previous Ling-Lim crisis. That time there was the so-called "Gang of 8" in the Team B which included Ong, the current president.

But Chua Soi Lek now does not have that kind of support in the presidential council though he might have less than seven in the central committee line-up, according to my wild guess, of course.

That is really not important because it is the central delegates that matters.

So both factions have to concentrate on the big numbers of delegates in the MCA states, like Selangor, Johor, Perak, Sabah and Wilayah KL.

Of course, as far as the delegates are concerned, the process of re-alignment and changing of loyalty takes place everyday.

Yet, there is an element of doubt in getting the numbers too. Whoever gets the majority support out of the 2,400 central delegates in numbers to attend either EGM may not necessary be the winner or be assured that their resolutions will get the full voting support.
Ultimately, only the votes inside the ballet box will tell.

There is an open denial that the MCA is split between Team A and Team B factions. There is also a claim the party is faced with just a disciplinary issue. Do you agree?

Every crisis in MCA has its origins but suffice to say that there is no open split is merely an open political statement.

Remember, when Ong Ka Ting and Chan Kong Choy openly denied there was no more Teams A and Team B factions after they occupied the shared power throne.

Of course, during peace times, the lines are blurred. Even now you notice, some former leaders aligned to Team A are occupying appointed key posts in the Ong-led top hierarchy.

Nonetheless, in a dispute, politicians like viruses undergo the incubation and permutation process, showing symptoms before finally re-aligning themselves accordingly to their loyalty and allegiance.

It is a matter of interpretation like you can well say that despite Chua, a former Team A leader during the Ling-Lim crisis maybe getting much support from the Team B rank and file now.

Some speculate even former presidents are quietly lending their discreet support.

Ong, a former Team B leader in a way is much more handicapped, so he has to perhaps, woo fence sitters by focusing on more different issues.

So you can see, he is courting a wider support by emphasizing his role in the PKFZ, on party reforms and as usual to save the party and so on.

And you can sense, they are no longer fighting each other on personality differences or at a personal level though that could have been the root cause of the scenario today.

Chua on the other hand, being sacked unceremoniously has more ground to argue his case including allegations that Ong had abused his presidential powers.

What will be the outcome of this party crisis and what other immediate directions will this in-fighting take?

I am not sure what the higher ups of Umno are feeling or what actions they maybe quietly hatching, perhaps to remedy this situation despite saying it is an internal MCA matter.

But we never know about invisible hands trying to end the crisis. It had happened in the past and there is no reason to doubt it will not happen again.

For example, a reliable source recently disclosed (claimed) an effort was actually made to mediate between the two leaders sometime between June and July this year.

According to the source, the mediating role involved (Tan Sri) Lim Kok Wing who did the same during the Ling-Lim crisis.

I was also told more than two weeks before the "sacking of Chua", a peace agreement was prepared but Ong failed to turn up to endorse his signature which was to be witnessed by a BN minister.

But the interesting fact is that there was plenty of opportunity for Ong to make peace with his deputy but it never happened.

There were also various circulating rumours earlier that Chua would be given a 3-year suspension but it turned out to be a sacking punishment.

There were rumours that the disciplinary chairman had strongly disagreed to Ong's own decision to the sacking

Of course, there are many other side-issues and disputes including the controversial allegation against Ong linking to the RM10 million collection and these are in fact being mentioned at on-going briefings and campaign rounds by both factions.

The future ahead?

There is speculation of an attempt to fill in the vacancy of the deputy president to replace Chua which may take place soon.

Rumours say that Liow Tiong Lai is a possible candidate. The next Central Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled on a Friday, Sept 11, next week.

I don't know, but if this is true, that move is questionable. On one hand you are seeking endorsement (from central delegates) on the sacking and a pre-emptive move on the replacement somehow does not fit in on the political correctness.