MCA's glory forever lost
Published: Mar 1, 2009 5:11 AM | Updated: Mar 1, 2009 5:22 AM
MCA, the second largest component party of the Barisan Nasional coalition, celebrates its 60th anniversary today.
Founded in 1949, the party is confronting its biggest challenge yet following the 2008 general elections with its parliamentary strength slashed to 15 seats from 40 contested.
Ong Tee Keat, 53, elected as the eight MCA president in October last year is facing tremendous pressure to carry out reforms within the party, aggravated by an electorate which is rapidly losing confidence and patience towards the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.
Under such circumstances, can MCA’s top echelon leaders - known for their bitter power struggle and resistance to reforms - be able to transform the party before the next general elections?
Will the current anaemic power struggle between Ong and his estranged deputy, Dr Chua Soi Lek, derail the party’s plan to regain its lost electoral ground or perhaps even restoring its former glory in the Malaysian political arena?
Former MCA headquarters’ research and planning department head, STANLEY KOH, who has just completed a year stint as senior analyst for Malaysiakini’s Digital Library , attempts to provide an insider view into the party woes.
MCA, the second largest component party of the Barisan Nasional coalition, celebrates its 60th anniversary today.
Founded in 1949, the party is confronting its biggest challenge yet following the 2008 general elections with its parliamentary strength slashed to 15 seats from 40 contested.
Ong Tee Keat, 53, elected as the eight MCA president in October last year is facing tremendous pressure to carry out reforms within the party, aggravated by an electorate which is rapidly losing confidence and patience towards the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.
Under such circumstances, can MCA’s top echelon leaders - known for their bitter power struggle and resistance to reforms - be able to transform the party before the next general elections?
Will the current anaemic power struggle between Ong and his estranged deputy, Dr Chua Soi Lek, derail the party’s plan to regain its lost electoral ground or perhaps even restoring its former glory in the Malaysian political arena?
Former MCA headquarters’ research and planning department head, STANLEY KOH, who has just completed a year stint as senior analyst for Malaysiakini’s Digital Library, attempts to provide an insider view into the party woes.
Malaysiakini: What do you see the significance of MCA’s 60th party anniversary celebration today?
Koh: Compared to a human life span, an organization of 60 years is considered young. However, political parties can still be vulnerable to demise as seen in many examples in other countries, where established parties are summarily rejected by voters. These are history lessons, I think, MCA leaders are very much aware of.
I think this celebration may serve to remind party members of the party’s historical struggle and for leaders to highlight some past relevance of MCA’s milestone achievements.
Probably behind the mindset of the leadership, are lingering apprehension of the mammoth tasks that lie ahead. There is really nothing substantive to celebrate but perhaps the past can be a source of inspiration.
I would like to think that the future of the party lies in its own hands. But unfortunately, I feel its future destiny is partially determined by whether the party will be able to retain its appeal among its electorate and the future platform, or direction, of its BN coalition partners, in particular, its political master, Umno.
Why is that?
Firstly, besides the changing political landscape, which is a determinant factor, if Umno does not reform, the MCA leadership would find it difficult to play an effective role within the coalition.
As an unequal partner to BN, MCA saw its political power eroding over the decades. With many outstanding inequalities such as a heavily lopsided civil service, discriminative economic policies, (the party) not consulted on many major policies and (its leaders) given less strategic ministerial posts, and so on and so forth.
Are you saying that MCA is caught in a ‘Catch-22' scenario?
Within the Chinese community, particularly the older generation and among the more intellectual circles, these are longstanding issues that remain unresolved for decades despite the changing of guards in the party leadership in the recent past.
If you look back from the days of (party president) Lee San Choon, for example to Ling Liong Sik’s leadership and then Ong Ka Ting’s time, these problems had remained. Even today, under Ong Tee Keat’s leadership, MCA is still caught between the “devil and the deep blue sea”.
The difference between the past and today is that the Chinese community have lost so much confidence and patience with MCA for being unable to effect any new paradigm shift despite the many promises over the years.
To make matters worse, since the 2008 general elections, a new threat has emerged. To MCA, the new player comprising the Pakatan Rakyat coalition is a serious threat to its future. The changing political landscape which politicians have often cited, basically refers to a change in the Malaysian mindset - a gradual awakening of the possibility of an alternative government, a two-party system.
Some called it “people’s power” against a BN coalition predominantly controlled by Umno, which is perpetuating race-based policies.
On the other hand, many claimed that the majority of Malaysians have lost confidence in Umno being able to truly reform itself. Of course, this belief is evident from recent political events and developments which reflected that the BN, and in particular Umno, are perceived to be undemocratic and unfit to govern vis-à-vis the questionable approaches in handling many of the national policies and issues.
Under such circumstances, many have queried whether MCA can effectively persuade or pressure Umno to change. The answer is self-evident as the majority of Malaysians do not believe that the “tiger will change its stripes.”
Do you see the leadership of Ong Tee Keat any different from, say, his immediate predecessor, Ong Ka Ting?
I think the character of the leader is closely tied to his or her leadership style and approach. This is inescapable. For example, the relationship between the president and his team can make a world of difference.
Other differences may include their levels of priority given to issues which affects the party’s image, the performance of party officials, and democratic space given for dissenting views.
Both Ongs have covered or deal with many of these issues with different approaches and leadership style. Perhaps, the current president, being a forthright and frank person, is less hypocritical in dealing with party leaders.
I think, Tee Keat’s tolerance for criticisms is much higher. But being forthright and straightforward, some considered this as a disadvantage. There are already critics accusing Tee Keat as lacking the touch of public relations, being stubborn or worse, dictatorial.
Many of his peers will probably agree that Tee Keat is less crafty, but on the other hand, he has been recently tagged as a “superman” for whatever reason.
It is perhaps too early to point out the differences between the two leaders, but the “political will” of the two leaders can be compared by the results of the reforms to be implemented by the incumbent president.
On the other hand, there is a lurking danger. Reforms can be carried out provided party members and leaders undergo a change of mindset and an understanding of the urgency of such an effort.
Resistance, though accepted as natural human response to changes, can be a disruptive and destabilising force for a political party if not handled well. This is best illustrated in the party’s long history during Lee San Choon’s tenure which caused rivalry between the old guards and the reformers. It was demonstrated again during Ka Ting’s tenure and he ended up as the main casualty.
Do you see the current strained relationship between the president and his deputy as a result of this effort to reform the party? Or do you see it purely a clash of personality?
In MCA history, there have been disputes or leadership crisis over differences in handling party issues, but seldom on party ideology. Of course, dissatisfaction against party appointments, conflicts over policy matters and even personality differences can contribute as justifiable excuses for going against the incumbent president by those who harboured a hidden personal agenda.
Soi Lek’s case is perhaps the first sex scandal in the party’s history and probably the only leader voted back to party post. Correct me if I am wrong. It also comes at the wrong time when the party faces tremendous pressures to reform itself after the 2008 general elections.
‘Man proposes and God disposes’, and this saying applies to the Ong-Chua’s strained relationship. Given the background, it happened under an unusual circumstance whereby the delegates at the Oct 18 party elections gave Soi Lek 46 percent support, beating his other two opponents - Ong Ka Chuan and Donald Lim Siang Chai.
Paradoxically, the delegates had voted in a deputy president despite his sex-related DVD exposure and his morality is questioned continuously. His supporters interpreted this victory as a sign of forgiveness and argued that the deputy president should be given a second chance to regain his political footing in the party, and even be appointed to a cabinet post.
However, many felt that Soi Lek’s political comeback goes against MCA’s need for reform. Feedback from within the bloggers’ community also showed there has been public pressure for MCA to uphold leadership integrity and a “clean” image among its elected leaders.
So as you can see, the matter of concern is much more than just sentiments within the party or a clash of personalities.
Are you saying this is the current dilemma of the president? What about other accusations thrown against Tee Keat for marginalising of his deputy and not abiding to the decision of the delegates?
It is a dilemma at the leadership level, but on the other hand Tee Keat has to use his wisdom or foresight in tackling this problem. I don’t think many leaders would like to be in his shoes now.
A recent public survey indicated that more than 76 per cent would not like to see leaders with a sexually-tainted background to hold government posts.
Hence, it is a matter of judgement - whether the president should please the 46 percent of 2,402 delegates who voted his deputy in or to listen to public opinion.
The president is also aware that whatever his decision, it would be judged on polling day at the next general election, not forgetting that the journey ahead would be tougher and more precarious.
He also has to take into consideration the level of political will in reforming the party as the whole Chinese community is watching closely his actions. But more importantly, he has to weigh the importance of the problems relating to his deputy against a deteriorating background of economic woes and rising social problems in the country.
On the other hand, Tee Keat’s strong moral stand was perceived to be lacking forgiveness which has drawn sharp criticisms. Some said this is reflected by his appointment of Soi Lek to head a not-so-important portfolio within the party.
Do you foresee a solution to the Ong-Chua’s problem through an EGM (emergency general meeting)?
I think the leadership should focus on the peoples’ problems because at the end of the day, the electorate will judge the party on its delivery system and in resolving the problems of the constituents.
To restore confidence of the voters in the party is tough enough as its image is closely tied to the negative image of Umno. As it is, MCA is considered irrelevant and many said it does not make any difference whether the party existed or not.
Of course, MCA’s internal leadership feud would naturally sap much of its energies which otherwise could be directed to the more urgent tasks of helping the Chinese community.
I see the odds are stacked against the party. It has to face a rising tide in favour of multiracialism, against corruption as well as mismanagement and many other issues which are beyond the party’s control and ability to bring change.
In short, the party’s role is diminishing. It has been neglected by previous presidents and perhaps, it is a bit too late to restore the glory of the party to the days of independence. Nevertheless, the 60th anniversary celebration is a good reminder of the good times, now forever lost.
Founded in 1949, the party is confronting its biggest challenge yet following the 2008 general elections with its parliamentary strength slashed to 15 seats from 40 contested.
Ong Tee Keat, 53, elected as the eight MCA president in October last year is facing tremendous pressure to carry out reforms within the party, aggravated by an electorate which is rapidly losing confidence and patience towards the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition. Under such circumstances, can MCA’s top echelon leaders - known for their bitter power struggle and resistance to reforms - be able to transform the party before the next general elections?
Will the current anaemic power struggle between Ong and his estranged deputy, Dr Chua Soi Lek, derail the party’s plan to regain its lost electoral ground or perhaps even restoring its former glory in the Malaysian political arena?
Former MCA headquarters’ research and planning department head, STANLEY KOH, who has just completed a year stint as senior analyst for Malaysiakini’s Digital Library, attempts to provide an insider view into the party woes.Malaysiakini: What do you see the significance of MCA’s 60th party anniversary celebration today?
Koh: Compared to a human life span, an organization of 60 years is considered young. However, political parties can still be vulnerable to demise as seen in many examples in other countries, where established parties are summarily rejected by voters. These are history lessons, I think, MCA leaders are very much aware of.
I think this celebration may serve to remind party members of the party’s historical struggle and for leaders to highlight some past relevance of MCA’s milestone achievements.
Probably behind the mindset of the leadership, are lingering apprehension of the mammoth tasks that lie ahead. There is really nothing substantive to celebrate but perhaps the past can be a source of inspiration.
I would like to think that the future of the party lies in its own hands. But unfortunately, I feel its future destiny is partially determined by whether the party will be able to retain its appeal among its electorate and the future platform, or direction, of its BN coalition partners, in particular, its political master, Umno.
Why is that?
Firstly, besides the changing political landscape, which is a determinant factor, if Umno does not reform, the MCA leadership would find it difficult to play an effective role within the coalition.
As an unequal partner to BN, MCA saw its political power eroding over the decades. With many outstanding inequalities such as a heavily lopsided civil service, discriminative economic policies, (the party) not consulted on many major policies and (its leaders) given less strategic ministerial posts, and so on and so forth.
Are you saying that MCA is caught in a ‘Catch-22' scenario?
Within the Chinese community, particularly the older generation and among the more intellectual circles, these are longstanding issues that remain unresolved for decades despite the changing of guards in the party leadership in the recent past.
If you look back from the days of (party president) Lee San Choon, for example to Ling Liong Sik’s leadership and then Ong Ka Ting’s time, these problems had remained. Even today, under Ong Tee Keat’s leadership, MCA is still caught between the “devil and the deep blue sea”.
The difference between the past and today is that the Chinese community have lost so much confidence and patience with MCA for being unable to effect any new paradigm shift despite the many promises over the years.
To make matters worse, since the 2008 general elections, a new threat has emerged. To MCA, the new player comprising the Pakatan Rakyat coalition is a serious threat to its future. The changing political landscape which politicians have often cited, basically refers to a change in the Malaysian mindset - a gradual awakening of the possibility of an alternative government, a two-party system.
Some called it “people’s power” against a BN coalition predominantly controlled by Umno, which is perpetuating race-based policies.
On the other hand, many claimed that the majority of Malaysians have lost confidence in Umno being able to truly reform itself. Of course, this belief is evident from recent political events and developments which reflected that the BN, and in particular Umno, are perceived to be undemocratic and unfit to govern vis-à-vis the questionable approaches in handling many of the national policies and issues.
Under such circumstances, many have queried whether MCA can effectively persuade or pressure Umno to change. The answer is self-evident as the majority of Malaysians do not believe that the “tiger will change its stripes.”
Do you see the leadership of Ong Tee Keat any different from, say, his immediate predecessor, Ong Ka Ting?
I think the character of the leader is closely tied to his or her leadership style and approach. This is inescapable. For example, the relationship between the president and his team can make a world of difference.
Other differences may include their levels of priority given to issues which affects the party’s image, the performance of party officials, and democratic space given for dissenting views. Both Ongs have covered or deal with many of these issues with different approaches and leadership style. Perhaps, the current president, being a forthright and frank person, is less hypocritical in dealing with party leaders.
I think, Tee Keat’s tolerance for criticisms is much higher. But being forthright and straightforward, some considered this as a disadvantage. There are already critics accusing Tee Keat as lacking the touch of public relations, being stubborn or worse, dictatorial.
Many of his peers will probably agree that Tee Keat is less crafty, but on the other hand, he has been recently tagged as a “superman” for whatever reason.
It is perhaps too early to point out the differences between the two leaders, but the “political will” of the two leaders can be compared by the results of the reforms to be implemented by the incumbent president.
On the other hand, there is a lurking danger. Reforms can be carried out provided party members and leaders undergo a change of mindset and an understanding of the urgency of such an effort.
Resistance, though accepted as natural human response to changes, can be a disruptive and destabilising force for a political party if not handled well. This is best illustrated in the party’s long history during Lee San Choon’s tenure which caused rivalry between the old guards and the reformers. It was demonstrated again during Ka Ting’s tenure and he ended up as the main casualty.
Do you see the current strained relationship between the president and his deputy as a result of this effort to reform the party? Or do you see it purely a clash of personality?
In MCA history, there have been disputes or leadership crisis over differences in handling party issues, but seldom on party ideology. Of course, dissatisfaction against party appointments, conflicts over policy matters and even personality differences can contribute as justifiable excuses for going against the incumbent president by those who harboured a hidden personal agenda.
Soi Lek’s case is perhaps the first sex scandal in the party’s history and probably the only leader voted back to party post. Correct me if I am wrong. It also comes at the wrong time when the party faces tremendous pressures to reform itself after the 2008 general elections. ‘Man proposes and God disposes’, and this saying applies to the Ong-Chua’s strained relationship. Given the background, it happened under an unusual circumstance whereby the delegates at the Oct 18 party elections gave Soi Lek 46 percent support, beating his other two opponents - Ong Ka Chuan and Donald Lim Siang Chai.
Paradoxically, the delegates had voted in a deputy president despite his sex-related DVD exposure and his morality is questioned continuously. His supporters interpreted this victory as a sign of forgiveness and argued that the deputy president should be given a second chance to regain his political footing in the party, and even be appointed to a cabinet post.
However, many felt that Soi Lek’s political comeback goes against MCA’s need for reform. Feedback from within the bloggers’ community also showed there has been public pressure for MCA to uphold leadership integrity and a “clean” image among its elected leaders.
So as you can see, the matter of concern is much more than just sentiments within the party or a clash of personalities.
Are you saying this is the current dilemma of the president? What about other accusations thrown against Tee Keat for marginalising of his deputy and not abiding to the decision of the delegates?
It is a dilemma at the leadership level, but on the other hand Tee Keat has to use his wisdom or foresight in tackling this problem. I don’t think many leaders would like to be in his shoes now.
A recent public survey indicated that more than 76 per cent would not like to see leaders with a sexually-tainted background to hold government posts.
Hence, it is a matter of judgement - whether the president should please the 46 percent of 2,402 delegates who voted his deputy in or to listen to public opinion.
The president is also aware that whatever his decision, it would be judged on polling day at the next general election, not forgetting that the journey ahead would be tougher and more precarious.
He also has to take into consideration the level of political will in reforming the party as the whole Chinese community is watching closely his actions. But more importantly, he has to weigh the importance of the problems relating to his deputy against a deteriorating background of economic woes and rising social problems in the country.
On the other hand, Tee Keat’s strong moral stand was perceived to be lacking forgiveness which has drawn sharp criticisms. Some said this is reflected by his appointment of Soi Lek to head a not-so-important portfolio within the party.
Do you foresee a solution to the Ong-Chua’s problem through an EGM (emergency general meeting)?
I think the leadership should focus on the peoples’ problems because at the end of the day, the electorate will judge the party on its delivery system and in resolving the problems of the constituents.
To restore confidence of the voters in the party is tough enough as its image is closely tied to the negative image of Umno. As it is, MCA is considered irrelevant and many said it does not make any difference whether the party existed or not.
Of course, MCA’s internal leadership feud would naturally sap much of its energies which otherwise could be directed to the more urgent tasks of helping the Chinese community.
I see the odds are stacked against the party. It has to face a rising tide in favour of multiracialism, against corruption as well as mismanagement and many other issues which are beyond the party’s control and ability to bring change.
In short, the party’s role is diminishing. It has been neglected by previous presidents and perhaps, it is a bit too late to restore the glory of the party to the days of independence. Nevertheless, the 60th anniversary celebration is a good reminder of the good times, now forever lost.
View Comments0