Clock is 'cliquing' for MCA polls

The late Soong May-Ling or popularly known as Madam Chiang Kai-Shek (1897- 2003) said, in an apparent reference to political factions within a ruling clique, that:

"Every clique is a refuge for incompetence. It fosters corruption and disloyalty. It begets cowardice and consequently is a burden upon and a drawback to the progress of the country. Its instincts and actions are those of packs."

Is it possible for political parties to be void of cliques and factionalism?

Most would agree the political arena is hardly a place for humble hopes and modest requirements when ‘team players’ are more focused on winning votes rather than winning hearts.

In fact, ‘teams and cliques’ have become so synonymous with MCA in light of the power struggles and leadership battles throughout its history that nobody really cares any more. It is regarded just as the flip-flop sides of the same coin. During ‘peace time’ it is called a team and during election times, faction.

So when MCA vice-president Ong Tee Keat openly said he would not ‘dance to the tune’ in forming any secret or open pact in his bid for the president’s post, his critics mocked Ong characteristically as the typical ‘lone ranger’.

Yet, there are some party insiders who viewed Ong’s intention as a credible move. They argued that MCA’s factional in-fighting and leadership upheavals in the past and recent times are caused by ‘cliques’ or so-called ‘team players’.

Like Madam Chiang had correctly viewed, many incompetent leaders are promoted in the party hierarchy merely because they belong to the same team or clique supportive of certain powerful leaders in the party.

"If a party constantly pays tribute to meritocracy, then the election of office bearers must stand individually and be prepared to be judged on their own merits, and not because they belong to a team which is paying patronage to the powers that be," a party insider said.

Is it morally correct?

Does the conventional formation of a ‘preferred team’ (candidates) for election purposes effectively guarantee a dynamic party line-up or even deter future political crisis within the party?

Is it morally or ethically correct for a presidential candidate to select his team players by marginalising others who may be equally capable of running for office?

Is it politically correct for a party’s secretary-general who also acts as the chairperson of the party election steering committee to continue to do so without any conflicts of interest, who may also under such circumstances decide to join in to contest for a party post?

Indeed, the political culture of MCA in conducting its internal electioneering is subject to scrutiny by its own rank and file.

Most agree that if MCA intends to undertake internal reforms, it must start examining the process of its own party election process and the ideology of its practices.

The party’s future destiny lies in the hands of some 2,437 national delegates on Oct 18, this year.

The compromised joint-leadership of Ong Ka Ting and Chan Kong Choy (post Ling-Lim crisis) will see the final curtain fall since both have indicated that they would not defend their respective positions as president and deputy president.

Unhappy presidents

But Ong and Chan can take consolation in knowing that all past MCA presidents had left the party either prematurely or unhappily.

Historian and author of several publications, Dr Lee Kam Heng (currently research editor of a mainstream newspaper) wrote in 2003, "…in the 54 years of MCA’s history, nearly all eight presidents left their posts under unhappy circumstances." (see chart)

The seventh elected incumbent president, Ka Ting currently serving his second term in office will not defend his post for the last term, the maximum number of years under the limitation tenure guidelines.

Lee in his research article disclosed, "Five resigned before completing their terms. Two were defeated in party elections (Tan Cheng Lock and Dr Neo Yee Pan). The elected leaders all had troubled tenures although there were periods of calm during the leadership of Tan Cheng Lock, Tan Siew Sin, Lee San Choon and Ling Liong Sik."

While any election process is part of the democratic principle, leadership upheavals and challenges that paralyze the healthy constitution of a party is another matter.

Factional power struggles, dissatisfaction with leadership styles, allegations of phantom memberships and coveted patronage seems to be a big part of the party’s ‘emotional DNA’.

Despite Cheng Lock’s great achievements, he was defeated by Chong Eu in 1958 amid growing Chinese disenchantment towards the former. Chong Eu resigned in1959 and left MCA after his tiff with former prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman. Siew Sin stepped down in 1974 (citing health reasons) after a young group of reformists mounted a campaign against his leadership.

San Choon resigned abruptly in 1983 due to the leadership of Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Koon Swan defeated acting president Yee Pan but resigned in 1986 following CBT charges against him over business dealings. Liong Sik stepped down in 2003 with his deputy Lim Ah Lek after a protracted party crisis.

Ka Ting and his deputy Kong Choy will serve their full 2005-2008 term but will not defend their posts for the last term in the coming party elections. The public is aware of the various reasons for this.

With the departure of the ‘odd’ couple, the Ong-Chan joint leadership, formerly aligning to different factions, Team A and B under Ling’s tenure, it is questionable whether the national delegates in the coming elections will ever learn their lesson in their voting preferences.

Cliques have emerged

Cliques have already emerged despite denials and discouragement from the top leadership. Old habits die hard. MCA elections and contests have always been centred on personalities rather than party policies. It remains to be seen whether the coming contest is able to shift to policies and platform.

It would be naVve to think that the campaigning style on the ground is void of destructive culture. Self-vested interests, political pay-backs, promises for political appointments, rumour mongering, gossips, character-assassinations, money politics can be common practices despite a rhetoric guidelines and repeated warnings from the top leadership.

The coming contest for the presidency may probably involve a three-cornered contest. Tee Keat (vice-president) has openly said he is capable of working with anyone (referring to any winners in the party’s contest line-up). Pundits are already predicting a likely challenger Fong Chan Onn against Tee Keat.

Chua Jui Meng (former vice-president) lamented that he was fighting a lonely battle against Ka Ting in the 2005 party elections. Will he be accepted into Faction B alongside with Chan Onn and others?

Team B leader Dr Chua Soi Lek (former vice-president) is making a strong "political come-back" amid speculations that he would even contest a top post. Despite being involved in a sex-scandal six months ago, Chua in a ntv7 interview quipped that he should be judged by his performance through his public life and not his private life.

"I will only announce (his candidacy) when I am ready," Chua quipped, but many believe he is targeting either the presidency or the number two post.

Eating the pudding

Should Chua decide to contest for the deputy post, who will he be challenging? Will it be Liow Tiong Lai or Ong Ka Chuan?

On the other hand, Ka Chuan (currently secretary-general) was once quoted as saying that he would not be contesting any posts. Will he change his mind (also chairing the MCA elections steering committee overseeing the party elections)?

Ka Chuan’s role in the steering committee has also attracted sharp criticism from his detractors who call it a conflict of interests. If indeed, he keeps to his word in not contesting, there is also a rumour that Ka Chuan would campaign for proxy votes for the presidential candidate provided the winner agrees to appoint him as the new secretary-general after the 2008 party elections.

In politics, forming strategic alliances is inevitable, some say even necessary in an election but forming 'election pacts' and creating cliques is never frowned upon within the party’s rank and file. Nobody says that politics is clean.

The wisdom of MCA delegates is therefore found wanting. As Ka Ting puts it: "The way to do it is through showing 'shi ji' (solid results) and by being 'wu shi' (pragmatic)."

Will delegates uphold the Chinese philosophy of 'zheng feng' (righteousness and ethics) in their choice of voting in the right candidates?

There is no answer for this now, as the taste is in (actually) 'eating' the pudding.