In reference to Barisan Nasional's recommendation to MCA to take strong action against its state assembly representatives Lim Boo Chang (Datuk Keramat) and Tan Cheng Liang (Jawi) for abstaining to vote against DAP motion to defer the RM1 billion Penang Outer Ring Road project (PORR), MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik said, "MCA is always willing to listen to views and advice from its friends in the Barisan Nasional. They have been patient and have given us very good advice" (BN has power to decide on membership, says PM).

This statement is interesting because it raises the question whether these "friends" within the front are really friends and secondly whether it is good advice.

In the first place, the advice is structured on double standards and arguably not a good advice. It is double standards because when Kelantan state legislature passed the Syariah Enactment in November 1993, the state assembly (which has two Umno reps) had voted unanimously for the law for which "friend" Umno had taken no disciplinary action against its two representatives.

When the Terengganu state assembly voted on the Syariah Criminal Offences (hudud and qisas) Bill on July 8, three state assembly representatives from Umno abstained from voting against it without being held to account (Why no action against errant Umno reps, asks MCA?, Dec 2).

It has now come to light that there were eight other Barisan assembly representatives (some of whom are from "friend" Gerakan which supported the sacking) who did not attend the Penang State Assembly meeting on Nov 21. Three of whom had excuses of attending official matters elsewhere or constituency needs as fire had broken out and the other to attend a function at Bertam golf course (The Star, Dec 12).

It will be seen that while the whip to impose party discipline is applicable — albeit selectively — to abstention from vote against the other side's motion, no matter that the abstention is structured on conscience, it is however not applicable to abstention from attending the entire sitting to vote on an important issue. It must be important to warrant sacking for abstaining to vote against a motion, as long as one has an excuse and has obtained prior permission to attend a golf function.

This is something that Lim and Tan have to learn: when one's conscience pricks to vote against a motion that is perceived as pro-rakyat, the ruse is to cook up some excuses to abstain from the entire sitting instead of attending to abstain from voting . That's the Barisan way. Migraine would decidedly be better than golf function especially when it is easy to assert and almost impossible to disprove, I'd suggest. At least it does not give constituencies the negative impression that their collective interest is less important than other official or golf functions.

In response to Ling's remark that BN cannot directly impose any disciplinary action on individual members of component parties, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad was quoted by Bernama to have delivered the veiled threat that while this was true, "the BN has the power to determine which party can be a member of Barisan Nasional" (BN has power to decide on membership, says PM). This is also true.

The prime minister was reported to have stressed that if any component party was not prepared to abide by the Barisan Nasional stand, then it meant it no longer upheld the system of co-operation in the front.

However, Ling's dilemma is how to address, and accommodate a system of co-operation that is structured on double standards in enforcement of discipline regarding abstention cases within Barisan — and where discipline sought to be enforced by the whip paid greater emphasis on the infraction of abstaining from voting on an important matter but not leave of absence from the entire sitting itself.

This form of enforcing party discipline smacks of the ludicrous, and if Ling were to submit to the demands of such a veiled threat for not toeing the line, it would imply that MCA has submitted to the ludicrous demands of hegemony than logic and fairness that would demolish whatever moral position MCA has ever hoped to assert on this controversy.

It would then appear that the most morally tenable position for Ling to uphold in response to this veiled threat is to say that MCA will countenance its fate as decided by other component parties within Barisan with as much fortitude as it can muster. This would leave the ball in the court of those who deliver threats to show whether they have the moral fortitude to execute by action the threat beyond words against the backdrop of the coming general election.

At stake is membership and sharing of power within the Barisan, whether it is worth the while vis--vis the moral credibility of the party which has been requested to toe the line whatever the sense or fairness of it.

In passing, the entire episode also underlines the problems of Chinese-based political parties that are more often disunited than united. Here the DAP started the ball rolling, and when the MCA duo abstained to vote against, the Gerakan attacked, with the DAP coming out in defence of the duo.