MCA 'snoop-squad' findings convincing?

analysis Truth is the very constituent of reality but searching for truth in a political controversy can be like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Political parties are not particular known as havens of righteousness. Most politicians are more obsessed with achieving their ends even if the means are unjustifiable.

This is particularly true of MCA’s denial of the existence of a ‘snoop squad’, backed by the findings of a three-member investigative panel comprising former Penang liaison chief Sak Cheng Lum, lawyer Roger Tan and veteran leader Michael Chen Wing Sum.

Are the findings sufficiently convincing for everyone to feel that the truth has prevailed?

“I believe part of (the claims),” says a former private secretary to a former MCA minister who declined to be named. “(The snoop squad) may or may not be formally linked to the top leaders.”

Another lawyer who is a MCA member said: “I don’t believe the investigation will have any possible outcome on the truth, but I hope the findings will be transparent.”

A youth leader said the snoop squad exists “unofficially” and that “it’s normal for leaders to get information from outside the party”.

This perception could possibly be widely shared.

The panel submitted its report, believed to be more than 50 pages, to the MCA presidential council for deliberation on Monday.

President Ong Ka Ting, Youth head Liow Tiong Lai and Wee Jeck Seng - said to be behind the alleged snoop squad’s activities - abstained from the discussions chaired by deputy president Chan Kong Choy yesterday.

According to a press statement, the panel found no evidence to prove that the four were involved in the purported three-member squad, as claimed by Wong Leong, the adviser to the Petaling Jaya Utara Division.

Wong had also claimed that Ong had paid former Gerakan Belia Bersatu Malaysia (GBBM) founder Tee Ann Chuan RM10,000 a month to operate the squad.

The panel noted that Wong (right), by refusing to reappear when re-called to be questioned by the panel, was not able to rebut Tee’s contention that Wong wanted to take revenge against Ong for not having nominated a close friend, Lim Choon Kim, as a candidate for the general election on March 8. Wong made the allegations in April.

Inadvertently turning the tables on Wong, the panel highlighted Tee’s testimony, indirectly implying that Wong had a political motive in leveling his allegations against Ong.

The summary report quoted Tee as telling the panel that “Wong Leong was willing to die and say anything to anyone”.

Tee also claimed that Wong had been taught what to say and was used by ‘hidden hands’ (those allegedly seeking to topple Ong).

Findings explained

The panel threw out the claim that the secret committee existed to purge dissidents in the party, including disgraced former vice-president Chua Soi Lek and another vice-president Donald Lim Siang Chai.

In the seven-page summary, the panel explained its findings which disproved and disposed of Wong’s accusations, as well as the testimonies of Choon Kim and Yap Pian Hon, among other witnesses.

It found evidence that “Tee (left) has travelled to some parts of the country and has met MCA grassroots leaders to gather information”, but could not establish his motive for this.

“It has been proven that Tee has been to the 16th floor (Liow’s office while he was deputy youth and sports minister, currently Wee’s office) and this has raised suspicion as to the nature of his activities.”

Tee had told the panel that he was gathering information for his memoirs and GBBBM’s Who’s Who which it did not find completely convincing.

Nonetheless, the panel cleared Liow and Wee of accusations, saying no one had testified to seeing them with Tee on the 16th floor of the office in Putrajaya, where the squad was set to have met.

In establishing that Ong (left) was not involved, the panel said: “We are mindful that if this is our conclusion, then it can be interpreted that someone is not telling the truth. We agree, and this is often the case, when it is one person’s word against the other.

“We find that the testimonies of Lim Choon Kim and Yap Pian Hon have not corroborated wholly with Wong Leong’s statement.”

The panel acknowledge that Tee, who is not a MCA member, was not obliged to testify but that he did so.

“We acknowledge him as a person who has cooperated with our investigation, although not completely by not turning up when recalled. However, we also conclude that if indeed Tee Ann Chuan had not spoken the truth, the evidence does not show that Ong Ka Ting is involved.”

‘Nothing sinister’

From the start, Wong had argued that the activities of the alleged snoop squad had a political motive.

To this, the panel said: “In fact, we did deliberate also on whether gathering information about who is supporting whom is tantamount to snooping or spying.

“We are of the view that being asked not to be seen or associated or trying not to be seen or associated with someone who is rumoured to be not favourable to a party leadership is a common act of politicking and lobbying among politicians, here and elsewhere. At worst, it is viewed with disapproval, but it is not morally abhorrent or unlawful.”

It ruled that photographs shown by Tee to Wong and others was a non issue.

“...political leaders have photographs taken of themselves and people whom they meet as a convenience to enable them to remember and to later recognise the people they met.”

It also noted that the documents shown by Tee did not originate from party headquarters. Yap (left), in his testimony, had stated that those shown to him (by Tee) were “handwritten” and not a computer printout.

“Is this (taking pictures) also unethical or tantamount to political espionage? We do not think so unless further activities that follow infringe on personal privacy. In this respect, we noted that throughout the enquiry, no information or evidence of this nature has been presented.

“The issue of gathering information for the leadership in any political organisation is also not uncommon. It is even expected that grassroots leaders become the eyes and ears of the leadership on what is going on at the ground….role of organising secretaries and assistant organising secretaries…..nothing (sinister) about it.”

However, lingering questions persist among the grassroots and may even have an impact on the upcoming party elections.