|
There is a new political culture and scenario. Are we prepared to relook the basic structure of our party? Can we leave the Barisan Nasional? Can we admit non-Chinese? SHANNON TEOH, THE MALAYSIAN INSIDER
Datuk Theng Book shot to prominence in the MCA this year when he launched the “Save MCA” campaign which, in its initial guise, served as a platform to force president Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting out of office via an anti-Ong brothers (Ong’s brother Ka Chuan is the secretary-general) movement. Currently, the vice-chairman of the Puchong division, he was a prime mover in the snoop squad allegations against Ka Ting, Youth chief and Health Minister Datuk Liow Tiong Lai and Deputy Youth and Sports Minister Wee Jeck Seng. The trio were accused of masterminding the collection of material in order to “assassinate” their rivals within the party. As the MCA party election in October draws near, SHANNON TEOH speaks to Theng on why the party needs to be saved. What does MCA need to be saved from? There is too much power in the president's hand. He can appoint up to seven central committee members including the secretary-general and treasurer. So if he controls another 40 per cent of the 24 elected central committee members, he controls the entire central leadership. He also appoints state liaison chiefs, puts people on the board of The Star, Huaren Management Holdings, the investment arm of the MCA, he can nominate people into Maybank and Tenaga. He can appoint senators. And he's so powerful that he can just appoint all yes-men. So how does the party remain strong? The problem is that so many rely on politics as their rice bowl. You need to treat it as an obligation and duty rather than a profession so if your principles are compromised, you can just resign. So because of this, many are afraid to lose their rice bowl. Today, our leadership seems to be professional politicians. We want to make things more democratic and transparent and create a new standard, a norm in the party. If you're no good, you go. I'm not talking about it personally. When you make bad decisions, you take responsibility. This is the culture you need to cultivate. Why have you targeted Ong Ka Ting specifically? One of the fundamental reasons is the failure in the March 8 elections. In any political party, if you cannot perform in an election, then the party is finished. From over 90 ADUNs (state assemblymen), we are down to 30-something. From 40 to 15 MPs. It's our worst performance in our history. By whatever standard, European or Eastern, the president has to take responsibility for that. Ka Ting, instead, looked for excuses, blaming the central committee when the decision for all election candidates was made by him. He treated the general election like a party election to strengthen his position in the party and to build up the Ong dynasty, to bring his brother Ka Chuan in as the next president. Ka Ting also wanted his cronies to be elected representatives to put the MCA under his absolute control. For example, Ka Chuan lost in the 2004 general election but Ka Ting still appointed him Perak chief and then he gave him a safe seat to run for 2008. He was also appointed, not elected, secretary-general of the MCA. If he wants his people, he gets his people. What if you had been working in this company for 20 years and the boss doesn't like you and just puts a freshie above you? That's why I always say he treats the MCA like Ong Brothers Sdn Bhd. His leadership was crucial in our defeat. His style is to negotiate and compromise but in a lot of critical issues he has not performed to the mark considered acceptable by the Chinese community. This shows he lacks leadership capabilities. I don't want to get personal and hit him below the belt. But this fight is over as he has already declared that he will not be running in the upcoming party polls. Of course he says it's not because of us, but the result is the same. As long as you go, I am okay. As far as Ka Chuan is concerned, we will let the delegates decide his future. If he wins, he will have to depend on his own capability since his brother is no longer in the picture. Why have this "Save MCA" campaign? Why not run for party elections and propose these changes through the system? This is why I am running for a place in the central committee. This will allow me to continue the "Save MCA" campaign until I see the change. Once elected I will propose amendments to the constitution. If possible, we elect the president from the grassroots, not from the 2,000-over central delegates. This is like Umno, who virtually elect the prime minister based on 2,000-plus delegates. In the MCA, the president can appoint the state liaison chief who will then influence the division chairs who then control the selection of delegates. So I have proposed that the branches should elect the president. For example, each branch has about 10 committee members. Say you have 4,000 branches, so you will have 40,000 votes for the presidency, so you have to be responsible to a large number of people, like a real presidential election and we should also appoint state liaison chiefs in the same way. The other benefit you get is that people have formed branches and put their family members as chairmen and the rest of the members are there by name only and there are no real active members. Indirectly, with this system, you are compelling people to be active in their branches and avoid phantom members.  This system will be more democratic because there is no way for one person to control the majority of the 40,000 voters. Of course, you can't ask for over a million members to elect the president because it's too costly but the fact is now your performance will have to count.
So 40,000 grassroots leaders will represent the 1.2 million membership which is more democratic compared to just 2,500 delegates where you only need to control about 1,300 delegates. What is at stake at this MCA elections? This will determine the future of the party and which direction we are headed. The new leadership will need to reformulate a new masterplan based on the principle where you have to take a stand. You can't keep to the old pattern of simply following orders. There is a new political culture and scenario. Are we prepared to relook the basic structure of our party? Can we leave the Barisan Nasional? Can we admit non-Chinese? We can't just be stubborn but open it for discussion. For example, Selangor MB Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim mooted the idea of opening up UiTM to non-Bumis. I think you must be brave enough to at least discuss it. If the proposal is beneficial to everyone, why not? We need to open things to discussion in good faith without hard feelings. If we think the MCA leaving the BN is a good choice, okay, then let's do that. Who knows, one day Umno might say, you're not doing a good job and kick the MCA out. So we should not be afraid to discuss anything for the good of the party. Are race-based parties still relevant? I was just telling members in my Puchong division, if any MCA leader goes around talking about unity of Chinese, they are obviously outdated. Today, it's about the unity of rakyat Malaysia. So the new leadership will have to discuss this in view of the political situation. No doubt the MCA is a race-based party but all this while, I don't know about others, my approach has been multiracial. I'm head legal advisor of the public services and complaints bureau. I serve everyone. Indian, Malay or Chinese I serve. So long as you are Malaysian I will help you. Historically, our name is the Malaysian Chinese Association but times have changed. You can have a company named ntv7 forever and carry the name but the content and structure can change. The name doesn't matter but the culture has to change. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't allow non-Chinese into the party but we can open this up for discussion. The young generation now wants something that is fair and just. They have been exposed to globalisation and know their rights. They are not interested in colour or religion. What they want is if they have capabilities, a platform to perform. If you are good, you should be given opportunities. Of course, we will still help the poor and less fortunate. We can offer them education opportunities but we can't help them forever. We can help them with regards to urgency but not just blanket help. The world is increasingly globalised and protectionism is dying. We cannot hold on to our tongkat culture. The panel of inquiry said the snoop squad does not exist. No, we have sufficent evidence that it exists. After all the investigation, we understand that they have compiled a 100-plus-page report but only revealed to the public a seven-page report. So it is a summary report which does not tally with the full evidence. Can a judge sentence you to death without giving you the reason and showing all the evidence? So nobody knows what is in those 100 pages. We were told even the presidential council committee does not have a copy. They say Ong Ka Ting is not directly involved. Fair enough but which developer when building a house will lay the bricks himself? He will engage contractors. But can you answer for Liow Tiong Lai, Wee Jeck Seng and Tee An Chuan? He has no answer for them. He is trying to disassociate himself from it and say the rest is not my problem and I don't have to answer for it. Immediately after the panel found Ka Ting was not involved, instructions went out to all the Chinese newspapers to tell them to stop reporting on it. We revealed more evidence, Tee An Chuan's working report, but they didn't want to report on it. For the current presidential race, are you for Datuk Ong Tee Keat? I'm not. I cannot see his track record. I don't want to talk badly about him but there is no proof that he is capable. I'm for Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek. He has proven himself as Health Minister, where he did very well, and he is an outspoken leader. More importantly, when things happen to him personally, he dares to admit it and accept responsibility which is rare today. So this is what "Save MCA" wants, because in future, if he makes a mistake he will take responsibility for it. This is the kind of leader we need at this juncture. For example, you teach your son, if you make someone pregnant you must admit it. Then when he does, you slap him and chase him out. That's not the way. You have to encourage him to take responsibility. After all, his wife has no complaints so who the hell are we to complain? If your wife says you can take another woman, who the hell are we to say cannot? Only the wife is in a position to complain. The other argument is the video itself. If I send someone to your house and plant the device, is that your fault? No, it's the person who planted the device. When Tee Keat hit him for it, it was like hailing the filmmaker as the hero. Is MCA still a towkay party? No, not anymore, that image is no longer relevant. Now the MCA is reverse. The big businessmen don't want to come in already. Previously, only those with good financial backgrounds come in to help the MCA and hold positions. You must remember, 30 years ago, the Chinese were fighting to make a living, so poor people had no time for politics. So it appeared that the MCA was full of towkays. Today, any wage-earner can come in. Maybe Ka Ting is the towkay in a sense but he should be called the taiko, the big boss. When you look at the history of MCA presidents, there has never been one with a moustache. So do both Tee Keat and Soi Lek have a chance? Yes, our presidents have never had moustaches. So both Tee Keat and Soi Lek have a chance but those with moustaches can only run for deputy like Tan Sri Chan Kong Choy and Datuk Chua Jui Meng. But in any case, Chua Jui Meng has no base support with or without his moustache. I think he has been concentrating more on church work.
|
The Blogs 
